EPTCommunity Feedback Update - July 31st - Page 21
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
| ||
|
ZergLingShepherd1
404 Posts
On August 09 2015 03:18 The_Red_Viper wrote: What did they say, they wanna remove the mechanics? Or will zerg get auto inject? auto inject with 2 larva no mule no chrono zerg will be very weak on the ealry game, hellbat push would be way to strong + banshee or Liberator terran will be very weak latter in the game, no parade push no more miracles but they can just make more workers and turtle a bit more and then push protoss has weaker ealry game but they have BS defense with PO.... So baisically zerg and terran gets alot more weaker... zerg the most since they will die to 5 min pushes and they wont have timings. I suspect they will give 3 larva or they will buff roaches/zerlings/queens | ||
|
pmp10
3390 Posts
On August 09 2015 01:55 digmouse wrote: David Kim said on the Gamescom stream that the next balance update will be focusing on the macro mechanics, likely starting with removing them. Great. So it's Dawn of War all over again. This will help kill the competitive scene far faster than any balance issues at launch of LotV. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16062 Posts
On August 09 2015 03:46 pmp10 wrote: Great. So it's Dawn of War all over again. This will help kill the competitive scene far faster than any balance issues at launch of LotV. 67% of people want the macro mechanics to stay; he still removes them. Why bother with doing community updates when he doesn't listen to the community anyway. My only hope for sc2 right now is that most people boycott LotV and continue playing HotS to force blizzard to switch tournaments back to it. LotV is doomed to fail. It neither appeals to casual gamers because of the added speed in building up and taking bases nor to hardcore competitive gamers because of the easier macro mechanics. | ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
On August 09 2015 03:46 pmp10 wrote: Great. So it's Dawn of War all over again. This will help kill the competitive scene far faster than any balance issues at launch of LotV. Do you really believe that Larva Inject and MULE are what makes competitive Starcraft so great? Of the three macro boosters, Chrono is the only one that's interesting in the slightest as far as strategy. As cool as it is to see Soo be slightly better at injects than everyone else, I think it would be more interesting to see APM being used to drop MULEs be used to create better army positioning on the map or more harassment. There are a ton of very tangible (harder to max out) and subtle (more incentive to fight skirmishes) benefits to removing macro mechanics and there is reason to believe that the game as a whole can greatly benefit. But more importantly, a change to the macro mechanics also leads to believe that there could possibly be even more important design changes down the line that would come as a result of changed balance and gameplay. For example, if Terran cannot use MULE to stablize after early game Protoss harassment via Adepts and Oracles, would those units need to lose their anti-light attack? Would SCV health need to be buffed? Another example, if we can assume that Zerg's ability to reproduce units is drastically nerfed without a significant amount of macro hatcheries, what buffs can we finally see to Hydralisk health or armor? Would it be possible for us to remove the Roach? Regardless of actual outcome, there can be significant changes to unit interaction if each of the races cannot produce so many units as such a high speed. In any case we really lose nothing by testing out these changes, and we potentially have a very high amount to gain by this change. | ||
|
ZergLingShepherd1
404 Posts
On August 09 2015 04:03 Charoisaur wrote: 67% of people want the macro mechanics to stay; he still removes them. Why bother with doing community updates when he doesn't listen to the community anyway. My only hope for sc2 right now is that most people boycott LotV and continue playing HotS to force blizzard to switch tournaments back to it. LotV is doomed to fail. It neither appeals to casual gamers because of the added speed in building up and taking bases nor to hardcore competitive gamers because of the easier macro mechanics. Yeah cuz macro is so intersting and takes so much skill and chooice. Not really.... Most terrans are upset cuz their OP MULE is gone. | ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
For the multiplayer beta balance I just wanted to talk about two main things. The first is the macro mechanics being cut, something that we’ve been discussing with our community over the last week or so. I’d first like to thank everyone for giving us the feedback on both the pros and cons of potentially cutting this mechanic. And what we’ve kind of decided internally is we’d like to really try out in the next balance update how the game plays if we were to remove these macro mechanics from the game. And the reason for that is because we can theorycraft all day, but it’s really difficult to figure out the exact and specific reasons why these mechanics are good or bad for the game so we really want to identify those things. And the one other thing that I’d like to point out, as many of you guys in the community have pointed out also, is we have increased the difficulty of not just the micro in the game but also the macro as well. So because of things like resource changes now you have to spread out your bases and expand more aggressively which means you have to manage multiple bases at once. And not only that, because of how the resourcing actually works in legacy of the void you gotta check back at each of those locations and manage the probes and worker lines a lot more efficiently as well. Our current thinking is that because we made it a little more difficult on this side, even if we take away a little bit from the macro mechanics we wonder if end result is that it’s a very skillful macro experience for players. | ||
|
rockslave
Brazil318 Posts
On August 09 2015 04:19 TheWinks wrote: David Kim on macro mechanics: For the multiplayer beta balance I just wanted to talk about two main things. The first is the macro mechanics being cut, something that we’ve been discussing with our community over the last week or so. I’d first like to thank everyone for giving us the feedback on both the pros and cons of potentially cutting this mechanic. And what we’ve kind of decided internally is we’d like to really try out in the next balance update how the game plays if we were to remove these macro mechanics from the game. And the reason for that is because we can theorycraft all day, but it’s really difficult to figure out the exact and specific reasons why these mechanics are good or bad for the game so we really want to identify those things. And the one other thing that I’d like to point out, as many of you guys in the community have pointed out also, is we have increased the difficulty of not just the micro in the game but also the macro as well. So because of things like resource changes now you have to spread out your bases and expand more aggressively which means you have to manage multiple bases at once. And not only that, because of how the resourcing actually works in legacy of the void you gotta check back at each of those locations and manage the probes and worker lines a lot more efficiently as well. Our current thinking is that because we made it a little more difficult on this side, even if we take away a little bit from the macro mechanics we wonder if end result is that it’s a very skillful macro experience for players. Awesome! Testing is what the beta is for. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16062 Posts
On August 09 2015 04:19 TheWinks wrote: David Kim on macro mechanics: For the multiplayer beta balance I just wanted to talk about two main things. The first is the macro mechanics being cut, something that we’ve been discussing with our community over the last week or so. I’d first like to thank everyone for giving us the feedback on both the pros and cons of potentially cutting this mechanic. And what we’ve kind of decided internally is we’d like to really try out in the next balance update how the game plays if we were to remove these macro mechanics from the game. And the reason for that is because we can theorycraft all day, but it’s really difficult to figure out the exact and specific reasons why these mechanics are good or bad for the game so we really want to identify those things. And the one other thing that I’d like to point out, as many of you guys in the community have pointed out also, is we have increased the difficulty of not just the micro in the game but also the macro as well. So because of things like resource changes now you have to spread out your bases and expand more aggressively which means you have to manage multiple bases at once. And not only that, because of how the resourcing actually works in legacy of the void you gotta check back at each of those locations and manage the probes and worker lines a lot more efficiently as well. Our current thinking is that because we made it a little more difficult on this side, even if we take away a little bit from the macro mechanics we wonder if end result is that it’s a very skillful macro experience for players. the biggest issues I see with it are that it might require complete rebalancing of the units from the races, especially zergs. At this point in the beta I'm not sure this is the right thing to do especially considering there are so many other problems right now. Also it is a massive buff to scan. | ||
|
ZergLingShepherd1
404 Posts
On August 09 2015 04:51 Charoisaur wrote: the biggest issues I see with it are that it might require complete rebalancing of the units from the races, especially zergs. At this point in the beta I'm not sure this is the right thing to do especially considering there are so many other problems right now. Also it is a massive buff to scan. They can nerf scan and buff zerg same with other races. There are ways to balance. Its drastic ? Yes ! It is good ? Hell yeah ! Will get more players, no more abusable MULE, no more insta remax unless you have 8 - 9 hatches, less protoss all ins. | ||
|
DeadByDawn
United Kingdom476 Posts
But I will trade the Mule hammer for stopping Zerg's insta-remaxing. Now what about warp ins - remove Warpgates and buff basic units (but nerf Adepts). After all what is Warpgate if not a macro booster. | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
| ||
|
Synastren
United States31 Posts
On August 09 2015 04:19 TheWinks wrote: David Kim on macro mechanics: For the multiplayer beta balance I just wanted to talk about two main things. The first is the macro mechanics being cut, something that we’ve been discussing with our community over the last week or so. I’d first like to thank everyone for giving us the feedback on both the pros and cons of potentially cutting this mechanic. And what we’ve kind of decided internally is we’d like to really try out in the next balance update how the game plays if we were to remove these macro mechanics from the game. And the reason for that is because we can theorycraft all day, but it’s really difficult to figure out the exact and specific reasons why these mechanics are good or bad for the game so we really want to identify those things. And the one other thing that I’d like to point out, as many of you guys in the community have pointed out also, is we have increased the difficulty of not just the micro in the game but also the macro as well. ... And yet theorycrafting was sufficient cause for jettisoning the community submitted economic changes. edit: Formatting the quote a bit more. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
Synastren
United States31 Posts
On August 09 2015 05:56 mishimaBeef wrote: Community submitted economic changes? What are you referring to? The big community suggestion for alternative economic models that did away with worker pairing. Blizzard's response was essentially "We don't feel like that would develop the game as we think it should be developed, so we're not going to try it." Their explanation for cutting macro mechanics is "We don't feel like we can come to a good conclusion regarding these mechanics without trying them ingame, so we're going to try it." | ||
|
shid0x
Korea (South)5014 Posts
Option 2: Cut chrono Cut mule Spawn larva is autocast by default, but spawn only 2 larva Litterally the most retarded thing i've ever heard since wol beta, who in blizzard did think of this ? Because macro mechanics are an area that’s difficult to do, and not many people can really tell how well someone is doing it, we’ve been exploring potentially cutting them or making them less important. This wont bring more twitch viewers, really. I'm all for a warp in nerf but 16 sec might be a bit much. | ||
|
Roblin
Sweden948 Posts
On August 09 2015 05:41 Synastren wrote: And yet theorycrafting was sufficient cause for jettisoning the community submitted economic changes. edit: Formatting the quote a bit more. there were showmatch tournaments played using various "community submitted economic changes" and blizz playtested internally, they came to the conclusion that those economic models are not drastic enough and/or didn't do enough that lotv model didn't already do. perhaps some theorycrafting was involved too but their reasons for not going with community eco models were certainly not just theorycrafting. source: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/18183849206 words words words... Community resourcing model suggestion We also watched show matches, tried games ourselves, and we agree with the majority of you guys that it’s too similar to Heart of the Swarm. But we wanted to comment again on this because it’s still a topic discussed by some. Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm. Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this. ...words words words edit addition instead of double-post: On August 09 2015 06:24 shid0x wrote: Litterally the most retarded thing i've ever heard since wol beta, who in blizzard did think of this ? you are walking a fine line between rhetorical question and ad hominem, if the entirety of your comment can be summed up as an insult, then you simply shouldn't post it at all. in situations like this, you should present your argument for why it is "the most retarded thing you've ever heard". you might find that giving actual explanations is significantly more difficult than spouting rhetorical questions that does nothing for the discussion. why do people automatically assume the changes are to increase twitch popularity? this particular change is to make your skillfulness be more visible primarily to your opponent and secondarily to yourself, the observers/viewers is a tertiary party that happen to benefit from such a change, twitch viewers is not the targeted audience so I don't see why "This won't bring more twitch viewers, really" is in any way a relevant comment. edit 2: while randomly browsing wikipedia I found the name of the specific logical fallacy you are committing! :D Argumentum ad lapidem | ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
On August 09 2015 06:32 Roblin wrote: perhaps some theorycrafting was involved too but their reasons for not going with community eco models were certainly not just theorycrafting. HotS and LotV are different games and the importance of those models weren't the specific models, but rather the general idea behind them. They justified not giving something like it a try on beta because of their internal testing. Here, they are admitting that their internal testing is inadequate for a change of this magnitude. | ||
|
TelecoM
United States10700 Posts
SC2BW Here we come. This should have been done 5 years ago, everyone who is mad get over it please....and all Oldschool bw players rejoice for this great change! | ||
| ||
