Before we get to this week’s topics, we wanted to let you know that the SC2 team is hard at work this week and are in the process of finalizing the changes for a balance update which will be coming next week. More info on the specific changes will be coming early next week, but some of the things we’re looking at for the next update are:
Disruptor
New ghost ability
Minimap improvements – icons for rocks/towers, and showing possible enemy spawn locations
Turret tracking for Siege Tanks and Immortals
Addressing the issue of making large numbers of air units difficult to micro.
Combining mech ground and air armor upgrades.
More balance changes throughout the game
Thank you again for your constructive discussions and help around this area. We’d like to point out once again that the majority of the changes in our beta balance updates couldn’t have happened without the collaboration with our community.
Now let’s talk about various topics that came up this week, and some of our next focus areas.
Map diversity in Season 3 We have seen the many discussions both for and against pushing map diversity quite heavily in this new tournament and ladder season. Although there haven’t yet been many highest level games played on these maps, our team has also been keeping a close eye on the last Homestory Cup/Kespa Cup/GSL games that were using the new maps.
Our initial thoughts agreed quite strongly with those of you who were pointing out the cool and unique strategies that players devised. The matches in Kespa Cup, for example, showed a wide array of varying build orders and strategies that we normally could not have seen if the map pool was standard.
In terms of playing the game on these maps, our playing experience is also in alignment with those of you who are saying that it’s just really fun being able to explore, locate, learn, and execute new strategies on the ladder.
Overall, we strongly believe in the direction of continuing map diversity in the future, but please also keep in mind if any of these maps do turn out harmful to the game, we will be taking measures to make fixes and/or remove the map mid-season in the more extreme cases. Compared to only using standard maps there’s just a higher risk of something like this happening, but we strongly believe the benefits of map diversity outweigh this potentially small risk.
Bridgehead PvZ Zerg all-in We saw a lot of players jumping to quick conclusions regarding how there is an all-in that Zerg can do that is unstoppable by Protoss. We saw the strategy performing well at Homestory Cup, but in Kespa Cup it was stopped by two different players both times the strategy was executed. We’re not trying to jump to any quick conclusions right now due to the strategy still being quite new, but from the games so far, it definitely doesn’t appear to be unstoppable.
We’d like to remind everyone that because the cool factor of map diversity is so important to the longevity and fun factor of StarCraft II in terms of both watching and playing the game, it’s important to stay open-minded and not be too quick to jump to such extreme conclusions. We really need to give new and unique maps a fair chance before making conclusions on how good or bad a map is.
However, one quick note regarding this topic is that the map creator wanted to make a change to the back door Line-of-sight blocker area to allow the defending player to see melee units attacking the rocks, so we’re currently looking to make the requested change and republish the map.
Cyclone The bad news here is that the direction we talked to you guys about last week turned out to be completely wrong when we play-tested the changes. Therefore, we will not be able to get out changes to the Cyclone for the next patch. The main reason this direction didn’t work out was due to the higher damage and same range in the late game. With these stats, the Cyclone was just countering too many things. We saw this especially against Protoss, who generally have higher cost units – a Terran who was just massing Cyclones took care of almost every unit Protoss could use.
The good news here is that since then, we’ve been exploring a new direction internally and it’s looking more promising. Where we’re currently at is something like this:
• Cast range is always 7, and max distance is always 15. • Lock on is broken if vision is lost. • There are 2 weapons now: • Ground weapon – Lower damage than current. • Air weapon- Much lower damage to start off with so that air harassment units can still come into play. From there, air harassment units could be shut down by Cyclones or they could be microed well to still deal a lot of damage.
• New upgrade to the Cyclone is to add more damage to both types of attacks (other upgrades are now gone). Once completed: •Ground weapon is stronger than now. •Air weapon is similar to now.
The general reasons here were:
• Completely removing the anti-air capabilities was probably too big of a nerf. • We want to see the micro on both sides on both ground and air units, especially when the unit counts are smaller in the early/mid stages of the game. • Adding the vision requirement to the ability will make Cyclone’s interactions around ramps or zero ground vs. air units will be more interesting. • Require 2 Cyclones to kill air harassment units such as banshees, warp prisms, oracles, etc. • And the micro here will be for the air units to utilize zero ground area well to get away.
Please keep in mind that thes changes are not final and we’d love to hear your thoughts in this area as well.
Medivac upgrade We agree with the majority of you in that the current Medivac upgrade isn’t the direction we should be pursuing. It’s a heavy combat add especially in cases where both ground and air units are chasing a bio army, because Terran players can lift up the whole army and land them on a different terrain level without much of a sacrifice. We believe that what we need here instead is something that encourages even more harassment play in the late game, but something that doesn’t buff the bio army in combat. Therefore, our current idea here is to change this upgrade to increase the speed boost duration.
Carrier Interceptor behavior improvement Thank you for your suggestion regarding how Interceptors behave. We agree with you guys that it might be more interesting if Interceptors on their way back to the Carrier can be more responsive when the player issues another attack order right at this moment. We have put this on our task to try it out internally sometime in the future.
We want to thank you guys once again for the continued engagement and support in both Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void, and we’d like to also give a shoutout this week to all the pro players who have been exploring and executing new strategies in the new maps! Thank you.
Finally a right changes to the Cyclone, love these constant updates. Can't wait to see what we will have next.
On July 11 2015 03:06 Topin wrote: medivac is alright! dont need any buff. still no love for Zerg?
They have already said that they are going to make Ravagers have 6 range again, and combined with no-armored tag that is quite good buff in the early game where Zerg was lacking because of new Reapers, Adepts and timings. They can't do everything at once.
Also, I've stopped watching LOTV for past month, did something happen so Zerg became a lot weaker? It was probably the strongest and most flexible race last time I was watching.
Fantastic that they're looking at Interceptor AI. Considering how they're also implementing subtle micro stuff like turret tracking and air unit control, I have hopes that they'll do something about Carriers too.
Vision breaking the Cyclone lock-on has been something I've been wanting for a while. There are a lot of interesting micro situations that can come from wrestling for vision control, and they can balance the unit around that. We'll see how the damage nerf/upgrade plays out though.
Well this is really promising but vague, assuming they correctly implement all the things. So for starters, I hope they're adjusting the system so seperation distance doesn't screw with moving shot rather than just lowering the separation distance since the makes it very difficult to spread out if you wanted to engage a lone thor or something. If they implement the carrier suggested exactly how Lalush said in his blog post then that's also perfect.
I'm not sure on the cyclone adaption the requirement of vision is good but the increase in power just makes me think it will be mass-able again but since I can't think of anything better than to scrap the unit. I also think that they should change the health. It should be a power unit that's fragile and able to zone other high tech values out.
On July 11 2015 03:11 DoubleReed wrote: Is the cyclone basically going to become a fancy version of the Goliath? That might round out mech pretty well.
I've been wanting Cyclones to be Goliath analogues for a while now, so I'd be very happy if they continued down this direction.
On July 11 2015 03:11 DoubleReed wrote: Is the cyclone basically going to become a fancy version of the Goliath? That might round out mech pretty well.
I've been wanting Cyclones to be Goliath analogues for a while now, so I'd be very happy if they continued down this direction.
it hey are doing that they could change their skin too, it sucks
On July 11 2015 03:11 DoubleReed wrote: Is the cyclone basically going to become a fancy version of the Goliath? That might round out mech pretty well.
I've been wanting Cyclones to be Goliath analogues for a while now, so I'd be very happy if they continued down this direction.
it hey are doing that they could change their skin too, it sucks
I don't really understand the Cyclone damage changes. With more dmg vs ground after upgrades, will mass Cyclone not be the go to composition for mid-late game mech? If so, this is rubbish! Mech is about the Tank and support, not mass mobile units.
While I don't think the Cyclone needs a ground damage buff, lock-on range of 7 vs 9 is a pretty big nerf to mass cyclone given their large model size. That plus the vision range change (much overdue) should do a good job of toning down the strength of Cyclone compositions.
On July 11 2015 03:11 DoubleReed wrote: Is the cyclone basically going to become a fancy version of the Goliath? That might round out mech pretty well.
I've been wanting Cyclones to be Goliath analogues for a while now, so I'd be very happy if they continued down this direction.
it hey are doing that they could change their skin too, it sucks
Just add legs?
Or compromise. Legs with wheels on the bottom. A rollerblading Goliath.
the medivac will place on top of the designed mech ground unit and cant heal. deployment: 2 secs the target unit will increase his attack by X and reduce his speed by 50%
yeah i would like to see something like that, probably a shit idea but its something
On July 11 2015 03:41 Topin wrote: Medivac new ability: coordinated attack
the medivac will place on top of the designed mech ground unit and cant heal. deployment: 2 secs the target unit will increase his attack by X and reduce his speed by 50%
yeah i would like to see something like that, probably a shit idea but its something
OK I thought only Blizzard had strange ideas, but you just beat them
On July 11 2015 03:41 Topin wrote: Medivac new ability: coordinated attack
the medivac will place on top of the designed mech ground unit and cant heal. deployment: 2 secs the target unit will increase his attack by X and reduce his speed by 50%
yeah i would like to see something like that, probably a shit idea but its something
OK I thought only Blizzard had strange ideas, but you just beat them
im just having lunch, i can blame it on being hungry
I like the idea of ignite afterburners having an upgrade to bump up the duration of ignite afterburners by 50%, from 8 to 12. But I worry that it creates a situation where they just have too much juice and can essentially never get caught with their pants down. If the default and upgraded cooldown on the ability were increased from 20 seconds to 24 seconds, I think that would do a little bit to make it less of a "speedy unless otherwise mentioned" unit and more of a "sluggish unless boosting" unit.
I'm liking the attention that the Cyclone is getting, but I disagree with the comments about the map pool, these maps straight up suck, whoever made the decision to add them should be replaced with someone who knows what maps are good for the game.
Also, medivac boost? What the actual fuck? That is literally the last thing that Terran needs as medivacs are already the best harassment tool in the game. Just focus on making the Ghost add some strength to bio late game and a Raven fix so Terran has a good not gimmicky end game caster like the Science Vessel was, harassment is good but it doesnt need to be the entire focus of the beta.
Honestly, I would love to see something like Fighting Spirit or Heart Break Ridge make it in the map pool ( which bridgehead is kinda like HBR tbh lol)
Love the turret tracking for the tank. Like the cyclone anti air capability being restored, not sure about ground damage - the tank needs to be the go to unit for ground damage from the factory.
Blizz still listening, still responding - that is good. But please rebalance HotS, Protoss has been running away with almost everything this year.
We saw this especially against Protoss, who generally have higher cost units – a Terran who was just massing Cyclones took care of almost every unit Protoss could use.
Blizzard if you hire me you can save a lot of time.
More serious: New Cyclones is an improvement, but the unit is still incredibly lame with its long range and still doens't have a proper support-function. It will always compete with Siege Tanks until it gets redesigned to be much weaker in straight up combat.
At least they are going in a decent direction. But if they make the cyclone more goliathy, why not simply make it a BWish goliath? Especially the model. I hate the cyclone model!
Also I dont get this, "cyclone is the new warhound/tank hybrid" -idea from blizzard. Wouldnt it be easier to keep the cyclone an AA role with little ground support for tanks, and instead buff the tank? (A real buff, not the medivac pickup thingy)
Turret tracking is honestly one of the most exciting things to ever be added. Blizzard improving micro with small changes is always welcome. On the topic of micro i have no idea what they will do with the mass air units but that should be entertaining.
However I just don't get what they are trying to add with the cyclone. I mean they seem to be really struggling to add anything to Terran, it seems like a pretty complete race already tbh...
On July 11 2015 04:30 Snugles wrote: Turret tracking is honestly one of the most exciting things to ever be added. Blizzard improving micro with small changes is always welcome. On the topic of micro i have no idea what they will do with the mass air units but that should be entertaining.
However I just don't get what they are trying to add with the cyclone. I mean they seem to be really struggling to add anything to Terran, it seems like a pretty complete race already tbh...
Pretty much my thoughts exactly, why is warp gate and gateway units not getting this level of attention?
David, the whole community wants redesigns on these two things primarily, Protoss needs to be toned down on the gimmicks and all ins and strengthened on basic skill ceiling/microability which is NOT the same as adding more units.
dudes... isn't he saying that they will revert the upgrade that halves the unload time of medivac and instead implement the upgrade to cause a longer speed boost?
No Blizz, Bridgehead is very fine in ZvP if the cannons/units from the nat can target the melee units attacking the rocks. Right now with the LOS blockers it's just retarded. Use the TLMC version like you should have done in the first place anyways.
On July 11 2015 04:30 Snugles wrote: Turret tracking is honestly one of the most exciting things to ever be added. Blizzard improving micro with small changes is always welcome. On the topic of micro i have no idea what they will do with the mass air units but that should be entertaining.
However I just don't get what they are trying to add with the cyclone. I mean they seem to be really struggling to add anything to Terran, it seems like a pretty complete race already tbh...
Movement speed and damage point are more important when it comes to the micro'ness of units. A 2.25 immortal with 0.167 still won't be able to do jack !@#$%^&*.
On July 11 2015 03:41 Topin wrote: Medivac new ability: coordinated attack
the medivac will place on top of the designed mech ground unit and cant heal. deployment: 2 secs the target unit will increase his attack by X and reduce his speed by 50%
yeah i would like to see something like that, probably a shit idea but its something
lol. might as well make some sort of voltron ability where a viking becomes a hoverboard for a thor that is picked up by medivac. the combined unit turns into an air unit and people never have to make BCs again.
On July 11 2015 04:30 Snugles wrote: Turret tracking is honestly one of the most exciting things to ever be added. Blizzard improving micro with small changes is always welcome. On the topic of micro i have no idea what they will do with the mass air units but that should be entertaining.
However I just don't get what they are trying to add with the cyclone. I mean they seem to be really struggling to add anything to Terran, it seems like a pretty complete race already tbh...
Movement speed and damage point are more important when it comes to the micro'ness of units. A 2.25 immortal with 0.167 still won't be able to do jack !@#$%^&*.
I think you're underestimating how useful it will be to be able to kite your Immortals back and then re-engage without having to wait through the pause as their top body realigns in the new direction they're moving.
On July 11 2015 03:41 Topin wrote: Medivac new ability: coordinated attack
the medivac will place on top of the designed mech ground unit and cant heal. deployment: 2 secs the target unit will increase his attack by X and reduce his speed by 50%
yeah i would like to see something like that, probably a shit idea but its something
lol. might as well make some sort of voltron ability where a viking becomes a hoverboard for a thor that is picked up by medivac. the combined unit turns into an air unit and people never have to make BCs again.
This is starting to sound a lot like their April Fools from that one year where if you built one of every Terran building they'd combine into a giant robot.
On July 11 2015 03:41 Topin wrote: Medivac new ability: coordinated attack
the medivac will place on top of the designed mech ground unit and cant heal. deployment: 2 secs the target unit will increase his attack by X and reduce his speed by 50%
yeah i would like to see something like that, probably a shit idea but its something
lol. might as well make some sort of voltron ability where a viking becomes a hoverboard for a thor that is picked up by medivac. the combined unit turns into an air unit and people never have to make BCs again.
This is starting to sound a lot like their April Fools from that one year where if you built one of every Terran building they'd combine into a giant robot.
How about this new terran unit: Hellmineon You have to first burrow a widow mine in the ground, then move a hellion right on top of the burrowed mine and then unburrow the mine. The mine will then be stuck inside the hellion and the units will merge to the Hellmineon. The Hellmineon can move like a hellion and has the same hitpoints and defense but has the random attack of a burrowed widow mine. For balance reasons though the Hellmineon can only target ground.
I think this do really well for terran because terran has so few units, especially too few splash damage units. And I think mech really needs another unit. On the other hand it shouldnt be able to hit air because terran mech is strong enough against air already.
On July 11 2015 03:02 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote: More medivac harass, its already good enough. They dont need a buff. The rest of the changes i agree.
But still no feedback on mass carrier and 4 gate adept that is shrecking Zerg and Terran.
Also no Zerg updates, the ravager, SH etc.
you stole my thoughts. get out of my mind.
Agree no medivac buff please..... But w.e
Anyway, they said they were gonna make balance changes in the next patch so i am guessing that might have something to do with the 4gate adept and carriers
On July 11 2015 05:26 RoomOfMush wrote: How about this new terran unit: Hellmineon You have to first burrow a widow mine in the ground, then move a hellion right on top of the burrowed mine and then unburrow the mine. The mine will then be stuck inside the hellion and the units will merge to the Hellmineon. The Hellmineon can move like a hellion and has the same hitpoints and defense but has the random attack of a burrowed widow mine. For balance reasons though the Hellmineon can only target ground.
I think this do really well for terran because terran has so few units, especially too few splash damage units. And I think mech really needs another unit. On the other hand it shouldnt be able to hit air because terran mech is strong enough against air already.
On July 11 2015 05:26 RoomOfMush wrote: How about this new terran unit: Hellmineon You have to first burrow a widow mine in the ground, then move a hellion right on top of the burrowed mine and then unburrow the mine. The mine will then be stuck inside the hellion and the units will merge to the Hellmineon. The Hellmineon can move like a hellion and has the same hitpoints and defense but has the random attack of a burrowed widow mine. For balance reasons though the Hellmineon can only target ground.
I think this do really well for terran because terran has so few units, especially too few splash damage units. And I think mech really needs another unit. On the other hand it shouldnt be able to hit air because terran mech is strong enough against air already.
On July 11 2015 04:30 Snugles wrote: Turret tracking is honestly one of the most exciting things to ever be added. Blizzard improving micro with small changes is always welcome. On the topic of micro i have no idea what they will do with the mass air units but that should be entertaining.
However I just don't get what they are trying to add with the cyclone. I mean they seem to be really struggling to add anything to Terran, it seems like a pretty complete race already tbh...
Movement speed and damage point are more important when it comes to the micro'ness of units. A 2.25 immortal with 0.167 still won't be able to do jack !@#$%^&*.
I think you're underestimating how useful it will be to be able to kite your Immortals back and then re-engage without having to wait through the pause as their top body realigns in the new direction they're moving.
That's not the real "pause". The real pause is the damage point. With the 1000-turn rate in Sc2, the effect isn't that significant. In the video shown by Lalush he only showed the effect of no damage point combined with turret change. The Dragoons in BW had a comparable movement speed to Stalkers.
On July 11 2015 05:26 RoomOfMush wrote: How about this new terran unit: Hellmineon You have to first burrow a widow mine in the ground, then move a hellion right on top of the burrowed mine and then unburrow the mine. The mine will then be stuck inside the hellion and the units will merge to the Hellmineon. The Hellmineon can move like a hellion and has the same hitpoints and defense but has the random attack of a burrowed widow mine. For balance reasons though the Hellmineon can only target ground.
I think this do really well for terran because terran has so few units, especially too few splash damage units. And I think mech really needs another unit. On the other hand it shouldnt be able to hit air because terran mech is strong enough against air already.
You need to contact Justine Chowder, you'd make a great team for a better StarCraft
The medivac doesn't need a buff, if you keep buffing aggressive harassment options you also need to buff the defense mechanisms. If you are doing this because #dropsarefuntowatch. They are not anymore because they are all we see against protosses in a situation were P obviously lack defense mechanisms to handle the situation. Its stale and boring, please make a game for diversity. A strategy game is supposed to be given to US(the players) to figure out what strategies to make of the tools we get.
You want to force us to play the way you want us to, thats not a strategy game that is a multitasking mechanical game.
The medivac buff means you can risk dropping more since you can boost from the mutalisks for a longer time and probably get away with it(depends on the buff). It means late game bio terran can just harass for days to close it out or stall for a transition.
On July 11 2015 04:30 Snugles wrote: Turret tracking is honestly one of the most exciting things to ever be added. Blizzard improving micro with small changes is always welcome. On the topic of micro i have no idea what they will do with the mass air units but that should be entertaining.
However I just don't get what they are trying to add with the cyclone. I mean they seem to be really struggling to add anything to Terran, it seems like a pretty complete race already tbh...
Movement speed and damage point are more important when it comes to the micro'ness of units. A 2.25 immortal with 0.167 still won't be able to do jack !@#$%^&*.
I think you're underestimating how useful it will be to be able to kite your Immortals back and then re-engage without having to wait through the pause as their top body realigns in the new direction they're moving.
It's going to be a buff for immortals but it isn't a big change at all. People wanting a shorter damage point / fast movement speed is not understanding that those are important characteristics of the unit.
I'm very happy with the communityupdates. However.. We all make mistakes sometimes that will have long lasting consequences. Mine would be to pick Zerg in WOL and stick with it. Balance aside; please make Zerg cooler. We have stuff that is useful, but if you compare the "cool factor" of terran with zerg it's a landslide victory for terran. Protoss is slightly better off.
On July 11 2015 07:24 ZackAttack wrote: I love map diversity as much as the next guy, but if the current HotS maps are anything to go by, protoss needs a change bad.
Regardless, a protoss ground army feels pretty weak with the current colossus but it could just be me being terrible.
I like the direction the Cyclone is taking, though I still believe 15maximum range is too big and I'm not sure it needs to be stronger than it is now when fully upgraded. But that sounds like a question for final tuning more so than the direction the unit should take.
Carrier change is good news as well! Exactly the changes this game needs, finetunings on existing units to make them more responsive. Now please consider some damage point changes, in particular units with fast attacks and standard or even higher damage point like hydralisks.
I still don't like how they want to push the medivac even more. I have been playing mutalisks against terran for 5years now because of the drops (minus those 8months of infestors) and I'm really, really fed up with it. Could I at least have a second option to play a standard game if terran chooses to play bio? Please, diversity in options how to solve a problem is what puts the strategy in RTS. Don't overbuff these restricting unit types even more!
Also, next time I would like to hear another update on zerg drops. I love rushing them, but I sincerely feel they are too strong at the moment and I would like to see an opinion on this rather sooner than later. I don't want this cool feature emergency reverted after the game is out, but rather I want to see it varied in the beta until it feels fair. (think how much hellbat drops had to be changed in HotS; how often widow mine drops got changed; these drop rushes are very peculiar!)
On July 11 2015 07:41 KrazyTrumpet wrote: Wait, combining air and ground mech armor again? Is this the new bunker build time change...?
Probably. Stupid decision to split them and stupid explanation they gave for it. End result - no one builds mech. So now we get a compromise where they combine the armour. That may be OK and result in more mech, or bio supported by mech, but let's see. But if not then they may combine them fully again, and then split them later.
On July 11 2015 07:41 KrazyTrumpet wrote: Wait, combining air and ground mech armor again? Is this the new bunker build time change...?
Probably. Stupid decision to split them and stupid explanation they gave for it. End result - no one builds mech. So now we get a compromise where they combine the armour. That may be OK and result in more mech, or bio supported by mech, but let's see. But if not then they may combine them fully again, and then split them later.
I understand that you're a terran but seriously mech sharing upgrades ground/air was completely ridiculous. I'm curious if the combined armor is the good middle ground to make mech flow better without it being as overpowered as it was before.
I'm curious about the new ghost ability and would rather see Blizzard invest in making ghosts better than investing in medivacs. Its possible, although I'm not sure to what extent, that making ghosts better and more functional would give bio that late game kick that it really needs. Drops for terran are already insanely potent and making them boost longer or changing the cooldown for how frequently feels like its still not solving the actual problem. Not to mention that with easier escapes via longer boosting drops become that much easier for the aggressor to do than the defender to counter.
As far as the new maps I'm glad they're willing to change them mid season. While I totally hate the maps now I'm curious as to how they will be after they're figured out. It still feels to me like the map selection was made moreso for the off season than for the actual WCS circuit. There's just too much new and experimental going on to make people play these maps for their careers imo. I'd love to see these kind of experimental maps go out during the off season where tournaments can just mix in whichever the general consensus says are the best. But knowing that Blizzard isn't afraid to change them mid season gives me a little hope.
On July 11 2015 07:41 KrazyTrumpet wrote: Wait, combining air and ground mech armor again? Is this the new bunker build time change...?
Probably. Stupid decision to split them and stupid explanation they gave for it. End result - no one builds mech. So now we get a compromise where they combine the armour. That may be OK and result in more mech, or bio supported by mech, but let's see. But if not then they may combine them fully again, and then split them later.
I think it should be a case where they make a design decision and stop with this combine/split balance act. Either they want fliers to be their own style, then split them. Or they want fliers to be part of the mech style, then combine or semi-combine them.
I think the design decision with the liberator was to give air a little more freedom to operate without ground support and give it a more stable all around unit besides the clunky BC. If that's the case I think they should work with that concept and not just half-ass it with a unit that may or may not see play while starport units only remain an endgame transition for factory-based play.
Combining upgrades was a stupid decision from the start and re-merging them 50% now is equally bad.
They don't buff mech, they buff an air transition after going mech initally. These kinds of indirect buffs that just buffs things in specific scenarios stiffles variety, creativty and growth of the game. If mech isn't viable without this it still wont be viable with it, what they make viable is an air style that relies on mech to survive the early/mid game and transitions into air. You want to see the same games over and over? I don't, please buff things if you want to buff things, don't make "if you do x and then y and stand at b then your x units will be stronger" that isn't a general buff it make the game very very one dimenional and as hundreds of games have proven repetetive.
Boost recharge decrease maybe, but inscreasing duration dowsnt seem necessary for promoting harass. If the idea is to extend the life of dropped bio units like they wanted to with the mass drop upgrade I dont think this does it.
Like I said before, either add an upgrade that allows them to heal while unloading or moving, or just add in the functionality.
Its an indirect buff that only effects one gameplay style and isnt a direct buff to the unit itself.
they don't want to extend the life of dropped bio units... that's why they reverted the change...
"It’s a heavy combat add especially in cases where both ground and air units are chasing a bio army, because Terran players can lift up the whole army and land them on a different terrain level without much of a sacrifice."
they want to improve the harassment but without improving the combat effectiveness
On July 11 2015 07:24 ZackAttack wrote: I love map diversity as much as the next guy, but if the current HotS maps are anything to go by, protoss needs a change bad.
Well currently Protoss are winning almost everything and watching LotV they seem very strong there too with all the shenanigans that they can do. So give the maps a chance and see if it helps balance things because we do not want HotS to end like WoL with one race trashing both of the others for an extended time.
On July 11 2015 09:09 Shuffleblade wrote: Combining upgrades was a stupid decision from the start and re-merging them 50% now is equally bad.
They don't buff mech, they buff an air transition after going mech initally. These kinds of indirect buffs that just buffs things in specific scenarios stiffles variety, creativty and growth of the game. If mech isn't viable without this it still wont be viable with it, what they make viable is an air style that relies on mech to survive the early/mid game and transitions into air. You want to see the same games over and over? I don't, please buff things if you want to buff things, don't make "if you do x and then y and stand at b then your x units will be stronger" that isn't a general buff it make the game very very one dimenional and as hundreds of games have proven repetetive.
But this is what I liked about the combined upgrades. It meant that I could go a small number of bio to survive the very early game (Oracles, etc), whilst getting a mech force together and then transition to air late game. It felt a lot more interesting than just being stuck on bio. Terrans have been saying that they cannot transition for some time and the combined upgrades helped that a bit. Combined armour is probably OK.
On July 11 2015 03:50 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote: To much focust on Terran, a race that is already complete.
Instead of changeing stuff for Zerg and Protoss that have useless units and design problems.
TerranCraft...
What? Terran is probably the race which is most lacking in diversity: It has been non-stop bio balls since WoL; I respect the few people that try to mech. If you even look at Terran in HOTS today, compared to WoL, there is little that changed to the core race. Unlike Protoss that received the MSC, Tempest and Oracles while Zerg armies were complimented with Vipers, Swarmhosts, Muta Regenation and an upgraded Hydras. Terran by far is the most stale race and needs the most attention. There was no truly innovative unit introduced in HoTS (unlike P and Z). It is clear Blizzard wanted to give them additional, innovative units, with their attempt to release the Warhound...but failed miserably.
On July 11 2015 03:50 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote: To much focust on Terran, a race that is already complete.
Instead of changeing stuff for Zerg and Protoss that have useless units and design problems.
TerranCraft...
What? Terran is probably the race which is most lacking in diversity: It has been non-stop bio balls since WoL; I respect the few people that try to mech. If you even look at Terran in HOTS today, compared to WoL, there is little that changed to the core race. Unlike Protoss that received the MSC, Tempest and Oracles while Zerg armies were complimented with Vipers, Swarmhosts, Muta Regenation and an upgraded Hydras. Terran by far is the most stale race and needs the most attention. There was no truly innovative unit introduced in HoTS (unlike P and Z). It is clear Blizzard wanted to give them additional, innovative units, with their attempt to release the Warhound...but failed miserably.
I think the point is more that Terran feels like the most cohesive and synergistic race, not that it is the most diverse. Marine, marauder, medivac is so common because each unit complements the other two so well. That's why Terran hasn't really changed since WoL, because they were already "complete." It's hard to add anything new that isn't either gimmicky or overpowered.
On July 11 2015 03:50 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote: To much focust on Terran, a race that is already complete.
Instead of changeing stuff for Zerg and Protoss that have useless units and design problems.
TerranCraft...
What? Terran is probably the race which is most lacking in diversity: It has been non-stop bio balls since WoL; I respect the few people that try to mech. If you even look at Terran in HOTS today, compared to WoL, there is little that changed to the core race. Unlike Protoss that received the MSC, Tempest and Oracles while Zerg armies were complimented with Vipers, Swarmhosts, Muta Regenation and an upgraded Hydras. Terran by far is the most stale race and needs the most attention. There was no truly innovative unit introduced in HoTS (unlike P and Z). It is clear Blizzard wanted to give them additional, innovative units, with their attempt to release the Warhound...but failed miserably.
I think the point is more that Terran feels like the most cohesive and synergistic race, not that it is the most diverse. Marine, marauder, medivac is so common because each unit complements the other two so well. That's why Terran hasn't really changed since WoL, because they were already "complete." It's hard to add anything new that isn't either gimmicky or overpowered.
No, no it isn't, I always laugh at how people see that "but bio is so strong you don't need anything else!!!"
Yeah, we have that with colossus, see how that turns out.
Yeah bio is good, well rounded etc. But that doesn't mean everything is good, luckily terran has the bio - mech dichotomy, so you can definitively make mech a viable playstyle without any significant change to bio play.
Also, theres nothing wrong with having diverse playstyles, every race should have them, terrans get tired of MMM all games too you know?
I love the direction of map diversity, but I hope they go even further and loosen up some of the restrictions they have. For example, having mineral-only bases or locations with 1, 3 or 4 gases. I feel like giving maps more power to balance the game would take out the pressure of having to balance patch as often once LotV is released. So instead of the Warp Prism buff we saw, maybe we just see maps with more dead space and in general encourage easier and safer drop play.
About the medivac : WHAT THE ACTUAL ****? "More harass in the late game with bio"? The whole bio play is already about harasment, counter attacks and trade base scenarii. In WoL, when a terran went bio he had the option to upgrade his frontal attack power with tank addition : since the game and units are going much faster in LOTV, right now the tank is kinda crappy, and bio need a smoother transition into something that give them more power in battle at the cost of mobility. The idea to make the ghost a support caster that fits this role (less mobility more frontal power) in TvZ as it does in TvP is a good one. Increasing harass in the late game is a terrible idea.
Just remove the marauder nerf, and make the tank deal much more single target damage against massive already. Buffing greatly its damage against massive would make the late game against zerg interesting (tank addition to counter ultralisks, viper/BL use to counter tanks), and TvP mech more viable (archons would be targetable so they don't shred hellbats).
The way to buff bio is to buff siege tank single target dmg against big units so siege tanks are actually good to be incorporated into bio play. Now Siege Tank don't have their designated upgrade anymore, how about giving them an upgrade to +dmg vs massive?
On July 11 2015 09:09 Shuffleblade wrote: Combining upgrades was a stupid decision from the start and re-merging them 50% now is equally bad.
They don't buff mech, they buff an air transition after going mech initally. These kinds of indirect buffs that just buffs things in specific scenarios stiffles variety, creativty and growth of the game. If mech isn't viable without this it still wont be viable with it, what they make viable is an air style that relies on mech to survive the early/mid game and transitions into air. You want to see the same games over and over? I don't, please buff things if you want to buff things, don't make "if you do x and then y and stand at b then your x units will be stronger" that isn't a general buff it make the game very very one dimenional and as hundreds of games have proven repetetive.
But this is what I liked about the combined upgrades. It meant that I could go a small number of bio to survive the very early game (Oracles, etc), whilst getting a mech force together and then transition to air late game. It felt a lot more interesting than just being stuck on bio. Terrans have been saying that they cannot transition for some time and the combined upgrades helped that a bit. Combined armour is probably OK.
It IS a lot more interesting than being stuck on bio, but the problem is that both air and mech should be viable by themselves. Not only viable if you do bio into mech into air transitions at specific timings. The strategy you describe is good but its not good when they make it the only mech strategy that is viable then instead of being tired of bio being stale we will get tired of this style too. Which I already am. There should be lots of different viable strategies that leads to lots of different situations and games, as it is now Blizz is saying, We want strategy a) b) and c) to be common so we buff them, that really dumbs down the game. Its not their role to decide which strategies are viable (besides taking out totally op or abusive strats).
How about a permanent medivac speed boost as an upgrade (as opposed to an active ability with cooldown without the upgrade) ? All other races drop tech have incredibly buffed in LOTV (warp prism pickup, 25/25 overlord drop tech) so its fair that Terran gets one too.
We could turn the ghost into something useful, but meh, let's make it a counter to ultralisks because we won't revert the marauder nerf, because, well, you know, eh..
On July 11 2015 09:09 Shuffleblade wrote: Combining upgrades was a stupid decision from the start and re-merging them 50% now is equally bad.
They don't buff mech, they buff an air transition after going mech initally. These kinds of indirect buffs that just buffs things in specific scenarios stiffles variety, creativty and growth of the game. If mech isn't viable without this it still wont be viable with it, what they make viable is an air style that relies on mech to survive the early/mid game and transitions into air. You want to see the same games over and over? I don't, please buff things if you want to buff things, don't make "if you do x and then y and stand at b then your x units will be stronger" that isn't a general buff it make the game very very one dimenional and as hundreds of games have proven repetetive.
But this is what I liked about the combined upgrades. It meant that I could go a small number of bio to survive the very early game (Oracles, etc), whilst getting a mech force together and then transition to air late game. It felt a lot more interesting than just being stuck on bio. Terrans have been saying that they cannot transition for some time and the combined upgrades helped that a bit. Combined armour is probably OK.
It IS a lot more interesting than being stuck on bio, but the problem is that both air and mech should be viable by themselves. Not only viable if you do bio into mech into air transitions at specific timings. The strategy you describe is good but its not good when they make it the only mech strategy that is viable then instead of being tired of bio being stale we will get tired of this style too. Which I already am. There should be lots of different viable strategies that leads to lots of different situations and games, as it is now Blizz is saying, We want strategy a) b) and c) to be common so we buff them, that really dumbs down the game. Its not their role to decide which strategies are viable (besides taking out totally op or abusive strats).
I agree with you, but I do not have faith in their ability to make them viable by themselves. Thus I was upset when they split the upgrades as it basically forced bio on you. At least this way there is a transition path, even if it is a prescribed one.
TBH I think that I am at the point where I will learn to play P&Z to shake things up once in a while. This might not be a bad thing.
On July 11 2015 11:43 Little-Chimp wrote: I'm loving the weekly updates. Seriously though what is with buffing the medivac lol. It is literally a god unit. Buff the tank instead or something
I'm all on board with this sentiment. These weekly updates are simply incredible.
However, I have no idea why Blizzard thinks the medivac needs even further versatility. It's not even that it's a "strong unit", but that it does everything well. It would be better to give more diverse roles to units like the siege tank or viking in order to indirectly buff mech and promote more unit diversity within games .
On July 11 2015 11:43 Little-Chimp wrote: I'm loving the weekly updates. Seriously though what is with buffing the medivac lol. It is literally a god unit. Buff the tank instead or something
I'm all on board with this sentiment. These weekly updates are simply incredible.
However, I have no idea why Blizzard thinks the medivac needs even further versatility. It's not even that it's a "strong unit", but that it does everything well. It would be better to give more diverse roles to units like the siege tank or viking in order to indirectly buff mech and promote more unit diversity within games .
Swap the medivac buff for a stronger Viking and faster transform any day. In the early days when everyone was a noob I loved sniping mineral lines with a Viking raiding party. Sadly those days are gone - people are more mini-map aware and Vikings melt pretty quick against most things.
On July 11 2015 11:43 Little-Chimp wrote: I'm loving the weekly updates. Seriously though what is with buffing the medivac lol. It is literally a god unit. Buff the tank instead or something
I'm all on board with this sentiment. These weekly updates are simply incredible.
However, I have no idea why Blizzard thinks the medivac needs even further versatility. It's not even that it's a "strong unit", but that it does everything well. It would be better to give more diverse roles to units like the siege tank or viking in order to indirectly buff mech and promote more unit diversity within games .
won't implementing Turret tracking make the Tank a better unit in the hands of a good player?
On July 11 2015 11:43 Little-Chimp wrote: I'm loving the weekly updates. Seriously though what is with buffing the medivac lol. It is literally a god unit. Buff the tank instead or something
i was thinking they could add detection as well and rename them Detecto-Vacs or maybe Vessel-Vacs
call me a C&C fan boy if you want to but, damn it i want a better Tank.
I'd switch in an instant to terran if they turned the cyclone into some form of medium tank. Gosh, why even call the siege tank siege tank if there is no second form of tank anyways.
Oh and give me a fucking Terror Drone. How could Dustin Browder not force his most glorious creation into the game.
I just want to jump on the bandwagon, I love the weekly updates.
The vibe in these is so much more positive in these forums after a couple weeks of this.
I have said this before, but I too don't think medvacs need a buff. They are already an incredible unit.
If you are just looking at usage in LOTV beta games, consider that many people still don't play the beta (I have no idea how many), but that medvac usage might increase when numbers increase.
I also really love that you are focusing on stuff like turret tracking. Those kind of changes I feel will impact the game much more than buffing an individual unit.
The map diversity improves my viewing experience, but that is not why I have bought the game. So many strange new maps only adds even more suspense and stress to the game, if there was, let´s say, one unconventional addition and one fairly normal, I would be fine, look at the unconventional one, have a quick glance at the normal one and just get into multiplayer, but 4 new strange maps, I just don´t have time to go thru them one by one, and when I just went into matchmaking, the game was really uncomfortable and after it, I still didn´t know the map, really not happy with such a quick changes.
I think you underestimate these kind of changes. And maybe I'm wrong, it's hard for me to understand how much impact something like this will have.
Does anyone understand the level of impact with the turret tracking change?
Dude being able to move attack and move back slightly faster with a tank in tank-mode is almost completely irrelevant. You should have it in siege mode anyway the majority of the time. And even then, it's not like the kiting it can do with 0.167 DP and 2.25 movement speed is very strong anyway.
The only imagineable scenario where it could be relevant is if someone drops you in your main and you need to counter it with a tank in tank-mode as the Siege-mode is too immobile (plus he can drop on top of you). But its a 5% buff to very specific and rare scenarios.
won't implementing Turret tracking make the Tank a better unit in the hands of a good player?
Nah this will barely matter.
I think you underestimate these kind of changes. And maybe I'm wrong, it's hard for me to understand how much impact something like this will have.
Does anyone understand the level of impact with the turret tracking change?
The turret tracking alone will hardly have any impact, besides being visually very pleasing. The tank still has to stand for at least 0.167seconds whenever it shoots due to damage point and is slower than most units in the game.
The only change I could see at the moment are some tiny early game situations when you defend certain harass or retreat with tanks where you may get another shot off. (e.g. against prespeed roaches or pre-stim marines).
I really like the vision weakness because who knows what sort of obstacle patterns you can design to create entirely different engagement interfaces. Cyclone is now on the right track.
Medivac has always been the Forcefield of Terran, but in the opposite extreme. Instead of disabling space, it is enabling. Which always seems like a good thing, but too much of anything can be bad for you. Terrain is invalidated and map makers have less sway over the variety. And both extremes have the same consequence, it may be holding the core units back because of how reliant Terran is on it. However, in the context of Hatch-tech drops and Pylon-range Warp Prisms, it seems difficult for me to advocate a big nerf. Had it been HotS, I would say it needs a nerf and then that balance chunk can be donated to the bio unit pool. Perhaps that will be the case, even in LotV.
But we still need to coax Terran off the Medivac heroin, so best I can offer is make them slightly more expensive, but offer an alternative in the aggressive bio department. Aggressive bunkers have become nearly extinct. Perhaps you can tie the Raven with the Bunker, just an idea. Auto-turret is already flirting with the idea and rarely used. Or it can be an upgrade of the bunker. It could unlock a new bio style. Built faster and more capacity, Super bunker? Slightly mobile bunker? Bunker with attack attributes?
On July 11 2015 03:02 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote: More medivac harass, its already good enough. They dont need a buff. The rest of the changes i agree.
But still no feedback on mass carrier and 4 gate adept that is shrecking Zerg and Terran.
Also no Zerg updates, the ravager, SH etc.
DK indirectly gave an answer to that, L2P. Adept OPedness seems to be timing related. Also sounds familiar, that, in a beta, 4gate is "so OP." Zerg is historically underfoot when the meta is in shambles, but they have the most to gain from making proper macro risks. And Terran drop style is still trying to find its place as not the answer to all things, but still seems to be flourishing if you watched the Red Bull Archon Tournament. However, I do agree that now Terran has gotten good Cyclone changes, we SHOULD be looking at Ravager, SH, Viper, Zealot, Disruptor, and the red headed stepchild that is Colossus.
New patch hit blizzard servers but is yet to be pushed to clients.
Changes:
Contains "Whispers of Oblivion" - 3 mission prologue to LotV
Zeratul, branded a heretic and a traitor by his people, has spent the last six years searching for the truth behind the return of the Xel'Naga. Having delivered warnings to both the Terran and Zerg, the part the Protoss must play in galactic events still eludes him.
GAMES2_VOID_PROLOGUE_DISABLED_BETA: Pre-purchase Legacy of the Void to gain access to the Prologue missions!
Voiceover and facial animation data added for Adept, Cyclone, and Liberator.
Light, texture, and terrain data added for several new tilesets.
Lurker attack now has a DamagePoint of 0.
Added upgrade data for a Cyclone air upgrade.
Added Adept shield upgrade.
Description: Increases the Adept's shields by 50.
Costs 100 minerals and 100 gas.
Researched at Twilight Council.
Terran Vehicle Weapons and Terran Vehicle Plating upgrades now apply to the Cyclone.
Protoss Ground Weapons, Protoss Ground Armor, and Protoss Shield upgrades now apply to the Disruptor.
New Reaper Ability: KD8 Charge
Description: Explodes after a short delay, doing 10 damage and knocking back nearby units.
5 range.
10 second cooldown.
"Allied Commanders" mode is starting to be implemented - they're associating units and talents with specific lore characters.
On July 12 2015 15:58 stuchiu wrote: Those who like increased map diversity think about this.
Among the 130 best games of all tie. 93 of them were played on standard maps.
you can't isolate single maps like that, you have to consider a pool of 7 maps at a time. while perhaps the majority of maps at any time should be standard, a map pool of entirely standard maps can be monotonous, since players can just use the same standardized builds, tactics, etc. on every map.
imo at least 2-3 maps at any given time should have some sort of experimental or game changing feature to shake up the meta a little. since these types of maps tend to be "figured out" more quickly, they can simply be rotated out of the pool more quickly as well, which also has the advantage of allowing more experimental ideas in total to be tested. then if some of these ideas work out well, mapmakers can start incorporating them into standard maps.
also, that statistic is very misleading. since the majority of maps in the history of sc2 have been standard, and non-standard maps are more likely to be vetoed, then the majority of all games will have been played on standard maps, not only the best games.
These new maps are not about "adaptation." They are objectively bad for the gameplay of SC2 itself, most maps back rocks, more than 1 entrance to natural...etc. It's like season 1 blistering sands and worse.
People need to speak up so blizzard will get decent maps in this pool. All the current maps are all purposely designed to not allow mech play, which is really disappointing seeing as how not every pro game should be bio imo.
Entire Map Pool from 2010 to 2014. (taken from GSL)
Non-Standard Maps: Blistering Sands • Desert Oasis • Scrap Station • Steppes of War • Xel'Naga Caverns • Kulas Ravine • Lost Temple • • Delta Quadrant Jungle Basin • Crossfire SE • Terminus RE • Crevasse Dual Sight Xel'Naga Fortress Calm Before the Storm Metropolis Atlantis Spaceship ESV Ohana • GSL Abyssal City KeSPA Neo Planet S GSL Icarus • DF Atlas • GSL Red City Alterzim Stronghold • Daedalus Point Habitation Station Heavy Rain Yeonsu Waystation Deadwing Foxtrot Nimbus Total: 33
Metalopolis Shakuras Plateau Tal'Darim Altar Bel'Shir Beach Antiga Shipyard Cloud Kingdom Daybreak Entombed Valley GSL Bel'Shir Vestige Whirlwind GSL Akilon Flats • GSL Star Station • Frost Polar Night Overgrowth Merry Go Round King Sejong Station Catellena Total Maps: 18
There have actually been more non-standard maps than standard maps.I'm not advocating a completely standard map pool, but the argument new maps means more unique builds is not necessarily an argument for it being a better map or better gameplay.
i'm not talking about this season's maps specifically, more of maps as a whole and for the future. it's unfortunate that a couple of maps one time have completely killed a lot of people's desire for experimental maps in general, since there are plenty of untested mapping ideas that have the potential to improve the game.
however, a big problem is that experimental maps currently have NO WAY of being tested for balance and gameplay, for several reasons: -blizz insists on using the same 7 map pool for literally everything including ladder and all WCS events -progamers consider any practice not done on the official tournament map pool a waste of time -the mapmaking community is too small and generally not proficient enough at the game to give maps proper testing -everyone else just plays ladder (see problem 1)
so you're left with 2 sub-optimal solutions: 1) keep filling the pool with daybreak/overgrowth clones with no innovation 2) throw some untested maps right into WCS/ladder and see what happens
i'm obviously biased since i'm a mapmaker, but despite the risks i'd go for option 2 just for the sake of avoiding staleness.
note: option 2 would be far less of a problem if the map pool rotated more frequently, as broken maps could be replaced very quickly, but blizzard's current system gives most maps in general a far longer lifespan than they really should have.
edit:
On July 12 2015 16:54 stuchiu wrote: I'm not advocating a completely standard map pool, but the argument new maps means more unique builds is not necessarily an argument for it being a better map or better gameplay.
of course not, it's a crapshoot. but it could be a better map or better gameplay, so you get rid of the ones that aren't and reuse ideas from the ones that are. see above for how to improve the system.
The problem with rotation is a ack of refinement. Antiga/Akilon/WW were in the map pool forever and they were usually stale, but because they were in their forever players got so good at those maps that we got games like Gumiho vs MMA, Gumiho vs Losira, Ryung vs Flash,, DRG vs Ryung, etc.
I think at least 1-2 of the really good maps (I'd say something like Cloud Kingdom pre-HotS/Whirlwind/ WoL TDA/ Frost/KSS post SH nerf) should be allowed to stay in the pool for a longer period of time while you constantly put the other maps on rotation.
On July 12 2015 17:29 stuchiu wrote: The problem with rotation is a ack of refinement. Antiga/Akilon/WW were in the map pool forever and they were usually stale, but because they were in their forever players got so good at those maps that we got games like Gumiho vs MMA, Gumiho vs Losira, Ryung vs Flash,, DRG vs Ryung, etc.
I think at least 1-2 of the really good maps (I'd say something like Cloud Kingdom pre-HotS/Whirlwind/ WoL TDA/ Frost/KSS post SH nerf) should be allowed to stay in the pool for a longer period of time while you constantly put the other maps on rotation.
agreed (sort of), personally i'd like more maps to get played in general but i wouldn't really mind if the pure standard maps don't rotate as often - they're going to play more similarly to each other anyway, and it gives players something they can feel "comfortable" on. it's the weird stuff that should definitely be rotating more frequently than maps currently do.
Yes of course bw is a legendary game because of its diversity. Regarding both maps and strategies. When you gave up on design and balance just add some diversity. Or go play some moba. Fuck that.
Since they talked about map diversity being a factor, I wonder whether we'll get a better map pool in LotV some time soon ? The Blizzard maps they added are mostly horrendous.
I think the turret tracking would matter more for the immortal than the tank.
But it's more like a cosmetic change, and change for the sake of awesomeness and style. I mean they put in ragdoll death animations for HotS which are totally unnecessary yet amazing.
I would like to throw out a change to the Disruptor, curious what you all think? I do not like the idea of Disruptors being invincible while activated, but they cost so much and to just lose them in a blink of the eye...well... sucks.... I also think this makes them a balancing nightmare. How do you find the right area of effect and damage vs cost/supply without being so detrimental if they just die?
What if when activated their speed increases similarly, they are not invincible(maybe shield increase when activated?) but when they are killed they split into 2 smaller disruptors with less hp/shield and deal less damage. If killed while activated the 2 smaller ones would still be active and deal their damage as well as continue on their last command?.
Not only would this be pretty cool, well I think so anyway, but would increase the micro potential of both players(im sure David Kim would love) as well as giving some sort of insurance for the protoss player that spent a bunch of resources and army supply. I also think this will be good for both pros and new players because right now it seems to just rek noobs but pros can out micro it. With my idea it will give the pro some insurance and the new player can at least kill it and not have something invincible come at them over and over. If its a shit idea I'll own up to it, but it seems worth a try, what do you think?
On July 12 2015 15:58 stuchiu wrote: Those who like increased map diversity think about this.
Among the 130 best games of all tie. 93 of them were played on standard maps.
you can't isolate single maps like that, you have to consider a pool of 7 maps at a time. while perhaps the majority of maps at any time should be standard, a map pool of entirely standard maps can be monotonous, since players can just use the same standardized builds, tactics, etc. on every map.
imo at least 2-3 maps at any given time should have some sort of experimental or game changing feature to shake up the meta a little. since these types of maps tend to be "figured out" more quickly, they can simply be rotated out of the pool more quickly as well, which also has the advantage of allowing more experimental ideas in total to be tested. then if some of these ideas work out well, mapmakers can start incorporating them into standard maps.
also, that statistic is very misleading. since the majority of maps in the history of sc2 have been standard, and non-standard maps are more likely to be vetoed, then the majority of all games will have been played on standard maps, not only the best games.
agreeable, which also makes it weird there's an inclusion of 4 non-standard maps at a single time. and yes, those numbers on their own don't really say anything.
On July 12 2015 16:39 avilo wrote: These new maps are not about "adaptation." They are objectively bad for the gameplay of SC2 itself, most maps back rocks, more than 1 entrance to natural...etc. It's like season 1 blistering sands and worse.
People need to speak up so blizzard will get decent maps in this pool. All the current maps are all purposely designed to not allow mech play, which is really disappointing seeing as how not every pro game should be bio imo.
it's not just mech play, almost any form of defensive style generally under performs on more aggressive "non-standard" maps.
I'm not sure about objectively bad, I'm of the opinion some features don't belong in a ladder pool for gameplay reasons, but I gues you get funny coin-flips for the viewers.
which brings me to the next point, I doubt speaking up to Blizzard does anything, just look at inferno pools. the whole thing has been discussed plenty of times, Blizzard just does what they want, if that sinks their ship so be it.
On July 12 2015 16:54 stuchiu wrote: Entire Map Pool from 2010 to 2014. (taken from GSL)
Non-Standard Maps: Blistering Sands • Desert Oasis • Scrap Station • Steppes of War • Xel'Naga Caverns • Kulas Ravine • Lost Temple • • Delta Quadrant Jungle Basin • Crossfire SE • Terminus RE • Crevasse Dual Sight Xel'Naga Fortress Calm Before the Storm Metropolis Atlantis Spaceship ESV Ohana • GSL Abyssal City KeSPA Neo Planet S GSL Icarus • DF Atlas • GSL Red City Alterzim Stronghold • Daedalus Point Habitation Station Heavy Rain Yeonsu Waystation Deadwing Foxtrot Nimbus Total: 33
Metalopolis Shakuras Plateau Tal'Darim Altar Bel'Shir Beach Antiga Shipyard Cloud Kingdom Daybreak Entombed Valley GSL Bel'Shir Vestige Whirlwind GSL Akilon Flats • GSL Star Station • Frost Polar Night Overgrowth Merry Go Round King Sejong Station Catellena Total Maps: 18
There have actually been more non-standard maps than standard maps.I'm not advocating a completely standard map pool, but the argument new maps means more unique builds is not necessarily an argument for it being a better map or better gameplay.
these numbers still don't say a whole lot to me, and I don't think there's any realistic way of measuring entertainment value on maps.
On July 12 2015 16:57 -NegativeZero- wrote: i'm not talking about this season's maps specifically, more of maps as a whole and for the future. it's unfortunate that a couple of maps one time have completely killed a lot of people's desire for experimental maps in general, since there are plenty of untested mapping ideas that have the potential to improve the game.
however, a big problem is that experimental maps currently have NO WAY of being tested for balance and gameplay, for several reasons: -blizz insists on using the same 7 map pool for literally everything including ladder and all WCS events -progamers consider any practice not done on the official tournament map pool a waste of time -the mapmaking community is too small and generally not proficient enough at the game to give maps proper testing -everyone else just plays ladder (see problem 1)
so you're left with 2 sub-optimal solutions: 1) keep filling the pool with daybreak/overgrowth clones with no innovation 2) throw some untested maps right into WCS/ladder and see what happens
i'm obviously biased since i'm a mapmaker, but despite the risks i'd go for option 2 just for the sake of avoiding staleness.
note: option 2 would be far less of a problem if the map pool rotated more frequently, as broken maps could be replaced very quickly, but blizzard's current system gives most maps in general a far longer lifespan than they really should have.
On July 12 2015 16:54 stuchiu wrote: I'm not advocating a completely standard map pool, but the argument new maps means more unique builds is not necessarily an argument for it being a better map or better gameplay.
of course not, it's a crapshoot. but it could be a better map or better gameplay, so you get rid of the ones that aren't and reuse ideas from the ones that are. see above for how to improve the system.
yeah, all these issues are not really helping, but I disagree with this being the right thing to do, to me there seem to be plenty alternatives.
On July 12 2015 17:29 stuchiu wrote: The problem with rotation is a ack of refinement. Antiga/Akilon/WW were in the map pool forever and they were usually stale, but because they were in their forever players got so good at those maps that we got games like Gumiho vs MMA, Gumiho vs Losira, Ryung vs Flash,, DRG vs Ryung, etc.
I think at least 1-2 of the really good maps (I'd say something like Cloud Kingdom pre-HotS/Whirlwind/ WoL TDA/ Frost/KSS post SH nerf) should be allowed to stay in the pool for a longer period of time while you constantly put the other maps on rotation.
would be nice if maps weren't locked to WCS seasons and didn't have a locked 4/7 rotation every 3months resulting in an average lifespan of half a year for 6/7 maps.
as for some maps staying longer, I think some of these already did long overstay their welcome, KSS has been in professional play for well over a year time.
Metalopolis Shakuras Plateau Tal'Darim Altar Bel'Shir Beach Antiga Shipyard Cloud Kingdom Daybreak Entombed Valley GSL Bel'Shir Vestige Whirlwind GSL Akilon Flats • GSL Star Station • Frost Polar Night Overgrowth Merry Go Round King Sejong Station Catellena Total Maps: 18
There have actually been more non-standard maps than standard maps.I'm not advocating a completely standard map pool, but the argument new maps means more unique builds is not necessarily an argument for it being a better map or better gameplay.
I don't think your list of standard vs non-standard maps is correct. It seems bizarre to class Ohana as a non-standard map, particularly during the era it was around. Moreover it fails to consider what was considered standard when the map was around. Dual Sight may not be standard in this meta, but I would definitely argue it is more a standard map than non-standard.
Secondly, even with your categorization these maps had a significant effect on shaping the meta. Ohana being an example of influencing PvZ via soul train, Yeonsu pushing blink builds to the limit and so on.
Lastly, you concede that you want a varied pool (if not in this post, in other posts) yet
On July 12 2015 15:58 stuchiu wrote: Those who like increased map diversity think about this.
Among the 130 best games of all tie. 93 of them were played on standard maps.
The point is map diversity is inherently a good thing to develop diversity in strategies which allows truly phenomenal games to happen. When Metropolis was around no one gave two shits about long macro games (barring an exceptional few) because the over exposure to macro games meant that particular play style wasn't as exciting as it would have been on another map.
Then again you also know my opinion on a casual vs competitive map pool and a standard vs non-standard balance on those
On July 12 2015 16:39 avilo wrote: These new maps are not about "adaptation." They are objectively bad for the gameplay of SC2 itself, most maps back rocks, more than 1 entrance to natural...etc. It's like season 1 blistering sands and worse.
People need to speak up so blizzard will get decent maps in this pool. All the current maps are all purposely designed to not allow mech play, which is really disappointing seeing as how not every pro game should be bio imo.
So far as LotV is concerned, the game should be balanced on as varied a map pool as possible to maximise the number of viable features that can be used on maps in the future. As such having that diversity now is vital to achieve that goal, and it's also important for issues like the weakness of mech on those maps to be highlighted (and hopefully addressed)
But so far as HotS is concerned, equally as not every progame should be bio not every map should need to support mech (or mech without an intermedia bio push). That said in TvZ mech looks viable on 3/4 of the maps (I'm not sure about Moonlight, which is the only map I haven't seen mech played on) while TvP I can't really comment on.
Disregarding maps for having backdoors and multiple entrances to the natural 'because it sends the game back to season 1' ignores the fact that (a) we understand how to manipulate these features much better now (b) races have more tools than they did in WoL to account for the features (e.g. Nexus cannon).
Zerg is doing alright. Would love the ravager looked at, but honestly the unit isn't that interesting compared to alternatives. Only thing I'm worried about is the usefulness/existance of peripheral upgrades/units (swarmhost / caustic spray).
On July 14 2015 00:31 Qwyn wrote: Zerg is doing alright. Would love the ravager looked at, but honestly the unit isn't that interesting compared to alternatives. Only thing I'm worried about is the usefulness/existance of peripheral upgrades/units (swarmhost / caustic spray).
I wouldn't mind if some units were tailored to be useful in some specific matchup or other. We have a lot of units and I feel like having each unit have some sort of potential in each MU but not necessarily be used everywhere would stop the units from treading on each others' toes.
Kinda like in BW TvP: Marines are good in earlygame to defend and maybe for some light pokes, but eventually you need to go into mech because bio gets destroyed by storms and reavers. However bio does well in lategame TvZ once you add in vessels, so it's used there.
We already have a bit of that in SC2 - for example, you don't see hydras in ZvT, or skytoss in midgame PvT, while the potential is there to make it happen (in the latter case, Grubby's Phoenix Colossus style, for instance). But when there's glaring balance issues with the Void Ray or the Hydralisk, it's a lot easier to look at just 1 or 2 critical matchups rather than all 3.
Or you know, DK could give us some of that map diversity and balance the game that way.
I'm really getting tired of reading David Kim's comments.
He talks about an unstoppable PvZ all-in in very vague terms, as if he doesn't want people to abuse it. But then goes on to say it isn't broken... yet... probably.
Well the only way you're gonna find out is to share this said all-in and have people abuse the heck out of it. Why are you trying to hide it? It is immature, and goes directly against the openness Blizzard states it wants to have with the community.
But I'll tell you why he was intentionally vague and his post lacked any details: because he knows it might be the next 4 Gate or 1-1-1. He knew that sometimes people could stop those all-ins, but it was often because the aggressor made a mistake or the defender had superior micro.
So he doesn't want to let everyone know what it is because he doesn't want people to abuse it. And that is because he probably can't balance it.
Openness is sharing, sharing opinions and ideas about why it might be too strong, sharing possible counters, and sharing changes that could improve the defense against or reduce the potency of the all-in.
Why isn't Blizzard speaking directly to us with specific statements? Sadly, they mastered the paragraph of fluff that says nothing long ago. You could literally sum up most of his paragraphs in a single line.
On July 11 2015 03:25 Sapphire.lux wrote: I don't really understand the Cyclone damage changes. With more dmg vs ground after upgrades, will mass Cyclone not be the go to composition for mid-late game mech? If so, this is rubbish! Mech is about the Tank and support, not mass mobile units.
The obvious solution to this problem is to make it damage specific. Make the Cyclone good versus Light units, so it specifically counters Zealots for Mech (this could allow for a change to Hellbats), but not good versus armored units (like Stalkers), so Tank support is required.
Blizzard just bungled the whole thing for Mech with HOTS. They should have done what I said, and not implemented the Hellbat and instead brought back the Warhound but made it counter light units with high damage slow attacks (so Hellions and Tanks would still be the counter to mass Ling/Bane) to battle Zealots (but be countered by Marauders, Roaches, Stalkers, ect) and give it powerful anti-air capability. Then allow Hellions to place a Flaming Betty's from the campaign to further battle light units and you've got yourself a working Mech composition.
On July 14 2015 00:31 Qwyn wrote: Zerg is doing alright. Would love the ravager looked at, but honestly the unit isn't that interesting compared to alternatives. Only thing I'm worried about is the usefulness/existance of peripheral upgrades/units (swarmhost / caustic spray).
I wouldn't mind if some units were tailored to be useful in some specific matchup or other. We have a lot of units and I feel like having each unit have some sort of potential in each MU but not necessarily be used everywhere would stop the units from treading on each others' toes.
Kinda like in BW TvP: Marines are good in earlygame to defend and maybe for some light pokes, but eventually you need to go into mech because bio gets destroyed by storms and reavers. However bio does well in lategame TvZ once you add in vessels, so it's used there.
We already have a bit of that in SC2 - for example, you don't see hydras in ZvT, or skytoss in midgame PvT, while the potential is there to make it happen (in the latter case, Grubby's Phoenix Colossus style, for instance). But when there's glaring balance issues with the Void Ray or the Hydralisk, it's a lot easier to look at just 1 or 2 critical matchups rather than all 3.
Or you know, DK could give us some of that map diversity and balance the game that way.
The best map composition is 4 standard 3 different, this caters for literally everything. You have people that don't like map gimmicks or slight map imbalances for races and they can just veto the 3 different maps, maps don't affect "casual" or lower league players since they're not playing at a level where map imbalances really count for much, map imbalances probably only come into play around low-mid masters or perhaps even higher. For progamers who have to play these maps Bo3 is the norm up to RO4 when it turns to BO5 they can pick one of the different maps and pull out a interesting pocket strat.
Bearing in mind that sort of high ground plateu were in BW also see
14m18s if link doesn't get time right My point is standard maps produce standard play which is usually all good assuming even levels of play, but maps with different features do have a place and produce some of the best games.
TL;DR 4 Normal Standard Maps 3 Different (Gimmickish) maps.
On July 14 2015 01:22 BronzeKnee wrote: I'm really getting tired of reading David Kim's comments.
He talks about an unstoppable PvZ all-in in very vague terms, as if he doesn't want people to abuse it. But then goes on to say it isn't broken... yet... probably.
Well the only way you're gonna find out is to share this said all-in and have people abuse the heck out of it. Why are you trying to hide it? It is immature, and goes directly against the openness Blizzard states it wants to have with the community.
But I'll tell you why he was intentionally vague and his post lacked any details: because he knows it might be the next 4 Gate or 1-1-1. He knew that sometimes people could stop those all-ins, but it was often because the aggressor made a mistake or the defender had superior micro.
So he doesn't want to let everyone know what it is because he doesn't want people to abuse it. And that is because he probably can't balance it.
Openness is sharing, sharing opinions and ideas about why it might be too strong, sharing possible counters, and sharing changes that could improve the defense against or reduce the potency of the all-in.
Are you talking about the 4 gate adept build? Or another? Because 4 gate adept is beatable.
On July 14 2015 00:31 Qwyn wrote: Zerg is doing alright. Would love the ravager looked at, but honestly the unit isn't that interesting compared to alternatives. Only thing I'm worried about is the usefulness/existance of peripheral upgrades/units (swarmhost / caustic spray).
I wouldn't mind if some units were tailored to be useful in some specific matchup or other. We have a lot of units and I feel like having each unit have some sort of potential in each MU but not necessarily be used everywhere would stop the units from treading on each others' toes.
Kinda like in BW TvP: Marines are good in earlygame to defend and maybe for some light pokes, but eventually you need to go into mech because bio gets destroyed by storms and reavers. However bio does well in lategame TvZ once you add in vessels, so it's used there.
We already have a bit of that in SC2 - for example, you don't see hydras in ZvT, or skytoss in midgame PvT, while the potential is there to make it happen (in the latter case, Grubby's Phoenix Colossus style, for instance). But when there's glaring balance issues with the Void Ray or the Hydralisk, it's a lot easier to look at just 1 or 2 critical matchups rather than all 3.
Or you know, DK could give us some of that map diversity and balance the game that way.
The best map composition is 4 standard 3 different, this caters for literally everything. You have people that don't like map gimmicks or slight map imbalances for races and they can just veto the 3 different maps, maps don't affect "casual" or lower league players since they're not playing at a level where map imbalances really count for much, map imbalances probably only come into play around low-mid masters or perhaps even higher. For progamers who have to play these maps Bo3 is the norm up to RO4 when it turns to BO5 they can pick one of the different maps and pull out a interesting pocket strat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYH1L4DreXc Bearing in mind that sort of high ground plateu were in BW also see https://youtu.be/CLSlqG9f4AQ?t=14m18s 14m18s if link doesn't get time right My point is standard maps produce standard play which is usually all good assuming even levels of play, but maps with different features do have a place and produce some of the best games.
TL;DR 4 Normal Standard Maps 3 Different (Gimmickish) maps.
On July 14 2015 01:22 BronzeKnee wrote: I'm really getting tired of reading David Kim's comments.
He talks about an unstoppable PvZ all-in in very vague terms, as if he doesn't want people to abuse it. But then goes on to say it isn't broken... yet... probably.
Well the only way you're gonna find out is to share this said all-in and have people abuse the heck out of it. Why are you trying to hide it? It is immature, and goes directly against the openness Blizzard states it wants to have with the community.
But I'll tell you why he was intentionally vague and his post lacked any details: because he knows it might be the next 4 Gate or 1-1-1. He knew that sometimes people could stop those all-ins, but it was often because the aggressor made a mistake or the defender had superior micro.
So he doesn't want to let everyone know what it is because he doesn't want people to abuse it. And that is because he probably can't balance it.
Openness is sharing, sharing opinions and ideas about why it might be too strong, sharing possible counters, and sharing changes that could improve the defense against or reduce the potency of the all-in.
Are you talking about the 4 gate adept build? Or another? Because 4 gate adept is beatable.
But I'm saying the standard of maps changes and should change. For example the main now has to be partially isolated from the rest of the map to combat Blink Stalkers because of the way Blink Stalker all-ins became a go-to strategy in 2013. It doesn't have to change quickly, but some of the "better" features of the non-standard 3 should work into a future map pool as part of the standard 4.
On July 14 2015 00:31 Qwyn wrote: Zerg is doing alright. Would love the ravager looked at, but honestly the unit isn't that interesting compared to alternatives. Only thing I'm worried about is the usefulness/existance of peripheral upgrades/units (swarmhost / caustic spray).
I wouldn't mind if some units were tailored to be useful in some specific matchup or other. We have a lot of units and I feel like having each unit have some sort of potential in each MU but not necessarily be used everywhere would stop the units from treading on each others' toes.
Kinda like in BW TvP: Marines are good in earlygame to defend and maybe for some light pokes, but eventually you need to go into mech because bio gets destroyed by storms and reavers. However bio does well in lategame TvZ once you add in vessels, so it's used there.
We already have a bit of that in SC2 - for example, you don't see hydras in ZvT, or skytoss in midgame PvT, while the potential is there to make it happen (in the latter case, Grubby's Phoenix Colossus style, for instance). But when there's glaring balance issues with the Void Ray or the Hydralisk, it's a lot easier to look at just 1 or 2 critical matchups rather than all 3.
Or you know, DK could give us some of that map diversity and balance the game that way.
The best map composition is 4 standard 3 different, this caters for literally everything. You have people that don't like map gimmicks or slight map imbalances for races and they can just veto the 3 different maps, maps don't affect "casual" or lower league players since they're not playing at a level where map imbalances really count for much, map imbalances probably only come into play around low-mid masters or perhaps even higher. For progamers who have to play these maps Bo3 is the norm up to RO4 when it turns to BO5 they can pick one of the different maps and pull out a interesting pocket strat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYH1L4DreXc Bearing in mind that sort of high ground plateu were in BW also see https://youtu.be/CLSlqG9f4AQ?t=14m18s 14m18s if link doesn't get time right My point is standard maps produce standard play which is usually all good assuming even levels of play, but maps with different features do have a place and produce some of the best games.
TL;DR 4 Normal Standard Maps 3 Different (Gimmickish) maps.
On July 14 2015 01:22 BronzeKnee wrote: I'm really getting tired of reading David Kim's comments.
He talks about an unstoppable PvZ all-in in very vague terms, as if he doesn't want people to abuse it. But then goes on to say it isn't broken... yet... probably.
Well the only way you're gonna find out is to share this said all-in and have people abuse the heck out of it. Why are you trying to hide it? It is immature, and goes directly against the openness Blizzard states it wants to have with the community.
But I'll tell you why he was intentionally vague and his post lacked any details: because he knows it might be the next 4 Gate or 1-1-1. He knew that sometimes people could stop those all-ins, but it was often because the aggressor made a mistake or the defender had superior micro.
So he doesn't want to let everyone know what it is because he doesn't want people to abuse it. And that is because he probably can't balance it.
Openness is sharing, sharing opinions and ideas about why it might be too strong, sharing possible counters, and sharing changes that could improve the defense against or reduce the potency of the all-in.
Are you talking about the 4 gate adept build? Or another? Because 4 gate adept is beatable.
But I'm saying the standard of maps changes and should change. For example the main now has to be partially isolated from the rest of the map to combat Blink Stalkers because of the way Blink Stalker all-ins became a go-to strategy in 2013. It doesn't have to change quickly, but some of the "better" features of the non-standard 3 should work into a future map pool as part of the standard 4.
If maps were discussed and voted through by map makers/progamers I would be fine with making finer changes on the standard maps but the fact that blizzard are the ones in control making a blanket statement of 4 standard maps and 3 stranger ones allows a map pool to not be infected with racial dominance or a particular all in. Not that I'm putting blizzard down, but progamers have more hours put into this game and usually a better understand because of that, and I'm 90% sure that the map makers have more hours put into map making than the internal ones.
On July 14 2015 00:31 Qwyn wrote: Zerg is doing alright. Would love the ravager looked at, but honestly the unit isn't that interesting compared to alternatives. Only thing I'm worried about is the usefulness/existance of peripheral upgrades/units (swarmhost / caustic spray).
I wouldn't mind if some units were tailored to be useful in some specific matchup or other. We have a lot of units and I feel like having each unit have some sort of potential in each MU but not necessarily be used everywhere would stop the units from treading on each others' toes.
Kinda like in BW TvP: Marines are good in earlygame to defend and maybe for some light pokes, but eventually you need to go into mech because bio gets destroyed by storms and reavers. However bio does well in lategame TvZ once you add in vessels, so it's used there.
We already have a bit of that in SC2 - for example, you don't see hydras in ZvT, or skytoss in midgame PvT, while the potential is there to make it happen (in the latter case, Grubby's Phoenix Colossus style, for instance). But when there's glaring balance issues with the Void Ray or the Hydralisk, it's a lot easier to look at just 1 or 2 critical matchups rather than all 3.
Or you know, DK could give us some of that map diversity and balance the game that way.
The best map composition is 4 standard 3 different, this caters for literally everything. You have people that don't like map gimmicks or slight map imbalances for races and they can just veto the 3 different maps, maps don't affect "casual" or lower league players since they're not playing at a level where map imbalances really count for much, map imbalances probably only come into play around low-mid masters or perhaps even higher. For progamers who have to play these maps Bo3 is the norm up to RO4 when it turns to BO5 they can pick one of the different maps and pull out a interesting pocket strat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYH1L4DreXc Bearing in mind that sort of high ground plateu were in BW also see https://youtu.be/CLSlqG9f4AQ?t=14m18s 14m18s if link doesn't get time right My point is standard maps produce standard play which is usually all good assuming even levels of play, but maps with different features do have a place and produce some of the best games.
TL;DR 4 Normal Standard Maps 3 Different (Gimmickish) maps.
On July 14 2015 01:22 BronzeKnee wrote: I'm really getting tired of reading David Kim's comments.
He talks about an unstoppable PvZ all-in in very vague terms, as if he doesn't want people to abuse it. But then goes on to say it isn't broken... yet... probably.
Well the only way you're gonna find out is to share this said all-in and have people abuse the heck out of it. Why are you trying to hide it? It is immature, and goes directly against the openness Blizzard states it wants to have with the community.
But I'll tell you why he was intentionally vague and his post lacked any details: because he knows it might be the next 4 Gate or 1-1-1. He knew that sometimes people could stop those all-ins, but it was often because the aggressor made a mistake or the defender had superior micro.
So he doesn't want to let everyone know what it is because he doesn't want people to abuse it. And that is because he probably can't balance it.
Openness is sharing, sharing opinions and ideas about why it might be too strong, sharing possible counters, and sharing changes that could improve the defense against or reduce the potency of the all-in.
Are you talking about the 4 gate adept build? Or another? Because 4 gate adept is beatable.
But I'm saying the standard of maps changes and should change. For example the main now has to be partially isolated from the rest of the map to combat Blink Stalkers because of the way Blink Stalker all-ins became a go-to strategy in 2013. It doesn't have to change quickly, but some of the "better" features of the non-standard 3 should work into a future map pool as part of the standard 4.
If maps were discussed and voted through by map makers/progamers I would be fine with making finer changes on the standard maps but the fact that blizzard are the ones in control making a blanket statement of 4 standard maps and 3 stranger ones allows a map pool to not be infected with racial dominance or a particular all in. Not that I'm putting blizzard down, but progamers have more hours put into this game and usually a better understand because of that, and I'm 90% sure that the map makers have more hours put into map making than the internal ones.
I think the in-house mapmakers do their best, or at least I wouldn't see a reason why they don't, but there's a lot less feedback in that environment than, for example, on TL. You have the experienced mapmakers who have had wide community support critique new mapmakers, a Q&A thread for up and coming maps, a group of volunteer number crunchers who volunteer their time to test out mining efficiency, positional imbalances, etc. and all of this is done by virtually anyone on TL who has the time, knowhow and enthusiasm. With Blizzard they have a lot of experienced people who put a lot more hours in than the average TL volunteer (though maybe some of the mapmaking teams put in almost as many or more hours per person, at any rate I can't say for sure), but ultimately the pool is down to all Blizz employees on the SC2 team.
I just really, really want to know what DK has in store for the map pool. On one hand it makes sense what they're doing currently - a map pool of ~7 maps that players of all skill levels can ladder on, as well as WCS can run on. So a ladder player can in theory do well in WCS, instead of having ladder be full of Python and Destination long after the pros stopped playing on those maps. But it would be cool to encourage either non-WCS or minor WCS tournaments to do either older maps (like GSL) or community sponsored maps and mix it up. Or have more TL-hosted tourneys where TLers submit their maps to a group of experienced mapmakers and pros like you said, and have the winning 5/7 used as the map pool for that tournament.
On July 14 2015 00:31 Qwyn wrote: Zerg is doing alright. Would love the ravager looked at, but honestly the unit isn't that interesting compared to alternatives. Only thing I'm worried about is the usefulness/existance of peripheral upgrades/units (swarmhost / caustic spray).
I wouldn't mind if some units were tailored to be useful in some specific matchup or other. We have a lot of units and I feel like having each unit have some sort of potential in each MU but not necessarily be used everywhere would stop the units from treading on each others' toes.
Kinda like in BW TvP: Marines are good in earlygame to defend and maybe for some light pokes, but eventually you need to go into mech because bio gets destroyed by storms and reavers. However bio does well in lategame TvZ once you add in vessels, so it's used there.
We already have a bit of that in SC2 - for example, you don't see hydras in ZvT, or skytoss in midgame PvT, while the potential is there to make it happen (in the latter case, Grubby's Phoenix Colossus style, for instance). But when there's glaring balance issues with the Void Ray or the Hydralisk, it's a lot easier to look at just 1 or 2 critical matchups rather than all 3.
Or you know, DK could give us some of that map diversity and balance the game that way.
The best map composition is 4 standard 3 different, this caters for literally everything. You have people that don't like map gimmicks or slight map imbalances for races and they can just veto the 3 different maps, maps don't affect "casual" or lower league players since they're not playing at a level where map imbalances really count for much, map imbalances probably only come into play around low-mid masters or perhaps even higher. For progamers who have to play these maps Bo3 is the norm up to RO4 when it turns to BO5 they can pick one of the different maps and pull out a interesting pocket strat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYH1L4DreXc Bearing in mind that sort of high ground plateu were in BW also see https://youtu.be/CLSlqG9f4AQ?t=14m18s 14m18s if link doesn't get time right My point is standard maps produce standard play which is usually all good assuming even levels of play, but maps with different features do have a place and produce some of the best games.
TL;DR 4 Normal Standard Maps 3 Different (Gimmickish) maps.
On July 14 2015 01:22 BronzeKnee wrote: I'm really getting tired of reading David Kim's comments.
He talks about an unstoppable PvZ all-in in very vague terms, as if he doesn't want people to abuse it. But then goes on to say it isn't broken... yet... probably.
Well the only way you're gonna find out is to share this said all-in and have people abuse the heck out of it. Why are you trying to hide it? It is immature, and goes directly against the openness Blizzard states it wants to have with the community.
But I'll tell you why he was intentionally vague and his post lacked any details: because he knows it might be the next 4 Gate or 1-1-1. He knew that sometimes people could stop those all-ins, but it was often because the aggressor made a mistake or the defender had superior micro.
So he doesn't want to let everyone know what it is because he doesn't want people to abuse it. And that is because he probably can't balance it.
Openness is sharing, sharing opinions and ideas about why it might be too strong, sharing possible counters, and sharing changes that could improve the defense against or reduce the potency of the all-in.
Are you talking about the 4 gate adept build? Or another? Because 4 gate adept is beatable.
But I'm saying the standard of maps changes and should change. For example the main now has to be partially isolated from the rest of the map to combat Blink Stalkers because of the way Blink Stalker all-ins became a go-to strategy in 2013. It doesn't have to change quickly, but some of the "better" features of the non-standard 3 should work into a future map pool as part of the standard 4.
If maps were discussed and voted through by map makers/progamers I would be fine with making finer changes on the standard maps but the fact that blizzard are the ones in control making a blanket statement of 4 standard maps and 3 stranger ones allows a map pool to not be infected with racial dominance or a particular all in. Not that I'm putting blizzard down, but progamers have more hours put into this game and usually a better understand because of that, and I'm 90% sure that the map makers have more hours put into map making than the internal ones.
I think the in-house mapmakers do their best, or at least I wouldn't see a reason why they don't, but there's a lot less feedback in that environment than, for example, on TL. You have the experienced mapmakers who have had wide community support critique new mapmakers, a Q&A thread for up and coming maps, a group of volunteer number crunchers who volunteer their time to test out mining efficiency, positional imbalances, etc. and all of this is done by virtually anyone on TL who has the time, knowhow and enthusiasm. With Blizzard they have a lot of experienced people who put a lot more hours in than the average TL volunteer (though maybe some of the mapmaking teams put in almost as many or more hours per person, at any rate I can't say for sure), but ultimately the pool is down to all Blizz employees on the SC2 team.
I just really, really want to know what DK has in store for the map pool. On one hand it makes sense what they're doing currently - a map pool of ~7 maps that players of all skill levels can ladder on, as well as WCS can run on. So a ladder player can in theory do well in WCS, instead of having ladder be full of Python and Destination long after the pros stopped playing on those maps. But it would be cool to encourage either non-WCS or minor WCS tournaments to do either older maps (like GSL) or community sponsored maps and mix it up. Or have more TL-hosted tourneys where TLers submit their maps to a group of experienced mapmakers and pros like you said, and have the winning 5/7 used as the map pool for that tournament.
I somewhat doubt that, the people are shifted from project to project the fulltime sc2 team is very small. The blizzard map makers are not putting in the same hours as the community ones since map making for sure isn't their solo role. When it's said that DK is the best player in the blizzard team and that archon mode partly came about because they needed to group two people together to test vs him fairly (he recently said he was at best low-mid masters now) it's pretty safe to say that our community members have probably played more games and thus have better knowledge of the game.
On July 14 2015 02:18 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I think the in-house mapmakers do their best, or at least I wouldn't see a reason why they don't, but there's a lot less feedback in that environment than, for example, on TL. You have the experienced mapmakers who have had wide community support critique new mapmakers, a Q&A thread for up and coming maps, a group of volunteer number crunchers who volunteer their time to test out mining efficiency, positional imbalances, etc. and all of this is done by virtually anyone on TL who has the time, knowhow and enthusiasm. With Blizzard they have a lot of experienced people who put a lot more hours in than the average TL volunteer (though maybe some of the mapmaking teams put in almost as many or more hours per person, at any rate I can't say for sure), but ultimately the pool is down to all Blizz employees on the SC2 team.
I just really, really want to know what DK has in store for the map pool. On one hand it makes sense what they're doing currently - a map pool of ~7 maps that players of all skill levels can ladder on, as well as WCS can run on. So a ladder player can in theory do well in WCS, instead of having ladder be full of Python and Destination long after the pros stopped playing on those maps. But it would be cool to encourage either non-WCS or minor WCS tournaments to do either older maps (like GSL) or community sponsored maps and mix it up. Or have more TL-hosted tourneys where TLers submit their maps to a group of experienced mapmakers and pros like you said, and have the winning 5/7 used as the map pool for that tournament.
Yeah we do our best and share lots of feedback between eachother, but you are severely overestimating the ammount of testing, it often comes down to the mapmaker playing vs some AI's or letting AI's battle, sometimes no testing at all, because nobody ever plays anything outside of ladder, nor does anyone want to do map testing.
from what I understand they're dead-set on what they want to do as always and I CBA to do anything preventing them from putting their own house on fire when they outcast any help.
On July 14 2015 02:18 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I think the in-house mapmakers do their best, or at least I wouldn't see a reason why they don't, but there's a lot less feedback in that environment than, for example, on TL. You have the experienced mapmakers who have had wide community support critique new mapmakers, a Q&A thread for up and coming maps, a group of volunteer number crunchers who volunteer their time to test out mining efficiency, positional imbalances, etc. and all of this is done by virtually anyone on TL who has the time, knowhow and enthusiasm. With Blizzard they have a lot of experienced people who put a lot more hours in than the average TL volunteer (though maybe some of the mapmaking teams put in almost as many or more hours per person, at any rate I can't say for sure), but ultimately the pool is down to all Blizz employees on the SC2 team.
I just really, really want to know what DK has in store for the map pool. On one hand it makes sense what they're doing currently - a map pool of ~7 maps that players of all skill levels can ladder on, as well as WCS can run on. So a ladder player can in theory do well in WCS, instead of having ladder be full of Python and Destination long after the pros stopped playing on those maps. But it would be cool to encourage either non-WCS or minor WCS tournaments to do either older maps (like GSL) or community sponsored maps and mix it up. Or have more TL-hosted tourneys where TLers submit their maps to a group of experienced mapmakers and pros like you said, and have the winning 5/7 used as the map pool for that tournament.
Yeah we do our best and share lots of feedback between eachother, but you are severely overestimating the ammount of testing, it often comes down to the mapmaker playing vs some AI's or letting AI's battle, sometimes no testing at all, because nobody ever plays anything outside of ladder, nor does anyone want to do map testing.
from what I understand they're dead-set on what they want to do as always and I CBA to do anything preventing them from putting their own house on fire when they outcast any help.
We yelled a bunch and got feedback threads. And all sorts of stuff over the last five years added because the community suggested it. With enough pressure we can change that if we really want to.
EPT
.
i only hope it cost less that cloak to be able to fake it if going banshees
