EPTqxc's thoughts: Patch 2.5.3 Review - Page 2
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
[PkF] Wire
France24193 Posts
| ||
|
phantomfive
Korea (South)404 Posts
On July 30 2015 23:26 ShambhalaWar wrote: For example, remove the inject mechanic, remove forcefields, drastic change to warp or remove it etc... maybe these are not the best examples of what to change, but I want them to change more of what people believe are the "core" issues of the game (of which economy probably still is one :/). I like the inject mechanic, I like forcefields, I like warp gate.....there's nothing in HOTS that is totally broken, like we saw at the end of WOL with BL/Infestor. Seriously, look at the amazing games it continues to produce: HOTS is good enough that it doesn't need a complete overhaul, it needs tweaks. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On July 31 2015 02:38 OtherWorld wrote: Why are these in General and not LotV? Mistake | ||
|
OPL3SA2
United States378 Posts
On July 30 2015 08:20 CloudyVision wrote: QXC has some insightful comments but I think Bizzard needs to look at the problem even more fundamentally. Why do people watch starcraft? Or even more fundamentally, why do people watch sports/games? There are various reasons and Blizzard needs to push the game towards those changes. For example, one reason people watch is because they play the game. And, many people play the game because it's brainless fun. Starcraft 2 isn't brainless fun because it's simply too hard. That's why games such as League of Legends and Candy Crush is so popular. It's simply fun. LoL can become harder though if you want it to. Similarly, starcraft 1 was like that. People loved just making 20 dragoons on an unlimited map and a-attacking. You can't do that with starcraft 2 with all these complex builds even at the silver level. Starcraft 2 needs to be dumbed down. There's a lot of truth to this post. Games in general are always fun at their most basic level, and starcraft has nearly lost it's most basic level..! | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
| ||
|
Antonidas
United States105 Posts
| ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
On July 30 2015 09:25 Plexa wrote: But equally, there is no other time to make changes to the underlying economy and there is the rest of the games lifespan to make these quality of life changes or major unit changes (see swarm host change in hots). So whatever we end up with needs to be in a place to offer the game the richest possible lifespan. I feel like our previous work on this issue (in terms of a DH economy) shows that DH offers more potential for a diverse gameplay in the long term than a mixed mineral model (in addition to other benefits like simplicity for newcomers). Additionally, the mixed mineral model places some pretty serious constraints on how maps are created -- we've been down this road before with blizzard insisting on 8m/2g bases when there were clear strategic gains to be made by considering 6m/1g bases. Why we want to lock ourselves into such stringent base requirements is truly perplexing. 100% Agree. While we could see changes like how they changed the swarm host in the middle of Legacy's lifespan, doing something like that to the economy is far more difficult. Now is their only real option. | ||
|
neteX
Sweden285 Posts
| ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
The Disruptor section discusses how the unit is tougher to catch, and when you do manage to catch one, losing it isn't as big a deal as it used to be. Is this good or bad? In their post-progamer summit announcement, Blizzard announced their intent to make it easier to punish bad Disruptor plays. Is this good or bad? With all of the talk of A+move Protoss, with Blizzard outright admitting that Protoss is the easier race to play at the professional level, it seems disingenuous to shy away from discussing how close Blizzard is to fixing this problem. The Ghost section discusses bio's struggles vs the Ultralisk, but despite this review being a week late, and despite the point of the ability being almost explicitly to help bio vs Ultralisks, the review doesn't offer any playtesting results on Ghost/bio vs Ultra. The review instead focuses on how one-dimensional the ability is, but disappointingly pussy foots around the issue and never actually calls it one-dimensional. Strong language isn't bad, as long as it's backed up by solid reasoning and argument. The Liberator section was my favorite as it discussed the unit from many angles, conceptual as well as practical, but it shies away from tackling bigger issues like the overlap of roles between the Liberator and the Tank, and is it good that the Liberator is taking over that role, or should the Tank simply be buffed instead? The Raven section is pretty straight-forward, it was always clear this change killed mass Raven strategies, the most interesting part for me is the addendum at the end that Ravens should be useful in numbers higher than 1. Do you have any suggestions for roles Blizzard should be exploring with the unit? Overall, most of the review seems to focus to focus too particularly on the literal changes of the latest patch, and very little on the bigger picture of what sort of game these changes are creating, which I think is the more pressing topic. It's very easy to get bogged down with the minutia of getting Ravager stats "just right," and before you know it the beta's over and we never even figured out if it was different enough from the Roach to deserve keeping. (Just as an example.) Like others have said, I disagree with the notion that experimenting with the economy is a bad idea. This is the ONLY time Blizzard could conceivably experiment with the economy. What are the chances that they hit upon the best possible SC2 economy with their first public iteration? Pretty slim. So why not try some adjustments before it's too late? Again, thanks for sharing. Hearing from pros is always great. | ||
|
NKexquisite
United States911 Posts
*Clap clap clap clap* | ||
|
NightEnD
Romania107 Posts
On July 30 2015 19:14 gTank wrote: I have read your post with your voice in my head :D  ) | ||
|
TedCruz2016
Hong Kong271 Posts
On July 31 2015 10:29 pure.Wasted wrote: The Liberator section was my favorite as it discussed the unit from many angles, conceptual as well as practical, but it shies away from tackling bigger issues like the overlap of roles between the Liberator and the Tank, and is it good that the Liberator is taking over that role, or should the Tank simply be buffed instead? This I completely disagree. Though both siege units, the liberator and the tank are very different, no roles overlapping. First of all, one is an air unit, the other is on the ground. That's a world's difference. That difference is reflected in the diversity of T's mid game strategies. Obviously, the change of medivac pickup in siege mode suggests that tanks should be paired with medivacs, therefore it can be perfectly blended in bio ball gameplay in both frontal push and doom drop. That is nothing new, as in WoL era tank/marine/medivac combo was the status quo to combat muta/lings, now that combo is just revived, and the addition of tank a MUST because there's no way to deal with lurker, ravager or ultra with bioball and mines. The Liberator, on the other hand, is a part of the mech style which may involve hellbats and cyclones - or vikings and banshees if going sky terran, but either way you're very unlikely to have both liberators and tanks. Second, in terms of space control, that is the job that's really taken over by the liberator, while tank, with the increase of its mobility brought by the medivac, is more of a colossus for terran's bio ball. As an expensive lab unit, tank has a huge range and deals with high SPLASH damage, therefore a few of them is enough; liberator, though, covers a small area in AG mode and its splash damage in AA mode is also low, therefore it must be scaled up in order to build a strong force, which is why it can be reactor'd. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
I don't really care about the game being hard because I won't play it, just watch the pros do it. But if we wanna have the game live as long as possible, then the game should be easy to pick up, and not stressing/frustrating to play. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On July 31 2015 15:03 TedCruz2016 wrote: Second, in terms of space control, that is the job that's really taken over by the liberator Yes. My question is whether that is a good thing. Just because a thing is a certain way does not mean it should be that way. SC2 can still be an infinity of different things. Medivacs don't have to be able to pick up Tanks. If they do, there are an infinity of different ways of balancing this mechanic, from dropping them unsieged, to dropping them sieged but forcing a full attack cooldown before the Tank fires its first shot, to preventing a Medivac from boosting with a sieged Tank in its cargo, and I could go on. How the mechanic is ultimately balanced will change the unit's micro floor and ceiling, and its relationships with other units. A buffed Siege Tank capable of controlling space may ultimately create more dynamic gameplay than a Liberator capable of controlling space. Or it may not. I don't know. I'm just asking questions. | ||
|
boxerfred
Germany8360 Posts
| ||
|
TedCruz2016
Hong Kong271 Posts
On July 31 2015 17:18 pure.Wasted wrote: Yes. My question is whether that is a good thing. Just because a thing is a certain way does not mean it should be that way. SC2 can still be an infinity of different things. Medivacs don't have to be able to pick up Tanks. If they do, there are an infinity of different ways of balancing this mechanic, from dropping them unsieged, to dropping them sieged but forcing a full attack cooldown before the Tank fires its first shot, to preventing a Medivac from boosting with a sieged Tank in its cargo, and I could go on. How the mechanic is ultimately balanced will change the unit's micro floor and ceiling, and its relationships with other units. A buffed Siege Tank capable of controlling space may ultimately create more dynamic gameplay than a Liberator capable of controlling space. Or it may not. I don't know. I'm just asking questions. I don't understand why everybody is holding a negative attitude towards the siege tank pickup. Tank is already underused in both TvP and TvZ, as almost everything counters it - speedlings, mutas, vipers, and in P's side, pheonix, blink, chargelots, immortals, you name it. Now the situation has gone even worse with the addition of ravager and disruptor. At this point, tank, as a ground unit, has basically zero value of space control. They ain't able to force the enemy to draw back. One the contrary, disruptors and ravagers can force you to draw back, and when you do retreat to dodge those attacks, the chances are, your tanks are gonna be left behind and die. That's why this new feature is extremely important. It enables tank to be rescued from jeopardy, and it balances off the effect of P's distant prism pickup anyhow. Also, it doesn't have to be unsieged when dropped, because, a unit that costs 150/125/3, takes a long build time and moves slow itself is NOT meant for harassment anyway. You simply can't afford it if it's lost. The whole purpose of this change is to increase its mobility, thus its survivability. Liberators, on the other hand, don't have such problems. As an air unit that's also anti-air, it can take care of itself. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
Thanks for getting your thoughts out qxc. I agree with a lot of the sentiments expressed in the OP, but this time I found the review to be a pretty middling effort. Here's some constructive criticism. Have to say you wrote a very good post with some of the same issues I thought of when writing the article. | ||
|
Sogetsu
514 Posts
I know a lot of people disagree and they think turtle should be viable but I still see it as a posibility, only not as strong as before, or not as passive as before... I myself tested it on many matches, a lot of games where you lost a big engagement and think "Oh this is done" because I am so used to HotS when the reinforcements are overwhelming... but no, because suddenly my enemy doesn't have enough resources to counter-push so strongly than before, and the game can continue (with a crappy eco maybe, but it can, and it is not an auto-lose) By no means I "love" this new eco, but I think like QXC said, it deals with the turtle problem we got in HotS. And honestly we are running out of time, LotV is going to be released in what? 4-6 months for sure. And there are A LOT of things to do to balance the game SERIOUSLY (specially design on many Protoss things), or we are going to get band aids everywhere and suffer it until they try to patch it later after release (and we know big changes are like a miracle on those stages of the game) | ||
|
xtorn
4060 Posts
| ||
| ||
