|
On August 22 2015 13:00 Vedeynevin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 06:13 GGzerG wrote:
People are complaining too much without actually practicing on the new patch yet, do you have 100 games played yet in the new patch / removal of macro mechanics? Are you in GM or top GM? If not then stop complaining and keep practicing. Agreed. I was very strongly against the auto inject change, as I enjoy doing injects as a zerg player. Having played some w/ this patch though i'm finding it doesn't bother me near as much as I thought it would. I am, however, having to adjust to the decreased larvae count. Also, due to all of the bad reading comprehension in this thread, HE SAID THEY ARE NOT DOING THE AUTO BUILD. READ THE WHOLE THING FFS!
While I'm not going to claim to have read every single post in the thread I've read most of them. The problem to me, and seemingly the few others I've read, is that they even TESTED such a stupid idea. And then said "look guys we listen but it doesn't really work".
Of fucking course auto build wouldn't work. It was a joke. They "listen" to the jokes but make little to no references to any serious suggestion
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
auto build should never have been a thing.
|
On August 22 2015 03:36 jinjin5000 wrote:
Ravagers already delt with siege tanks well when they flanked or waited until roaches tanked damage. I don't know why they are trying to nerf siege tanks even more-its not that great at state right now and needs lots of support like liberator hellbat and cyclone to make it work and they are looking to reduce it even further
This so much. Jesus.... just remove tanks altogether if you want them destroyed so bad.
The Collossus buff, nah get rid of it. Maybe increase it's speed but decrease range and damage dealt, but please don't revert to the old one again. As many said, it is a-move BS EZ PZ and has no place in LoTV at this point.
Like the Adept change, still may need another slight nerf.
And absolutely NO to the Photon Overcharge ideas.... please. If anything it needs to be removed altogether. This change is outright ridiculous. At least it is interesting on a dynamic level.
Overall not terrible changes, as long as the continue to listen to community suggestions and at least try some of them the when LoTV comes out it will be in a great place.
Thanks for the updates, please take the opinions in this thread under consideration!!!
P.S. The reduced worker count explanation was absolutely rubbish and makes no sense (if you think about it).
|
On August 22 2015 09:50 Quineotio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 02:55 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
Scouting is a critical component of StarCraft II, and we want to increase its importance in Legacy of the Void.
This is a concerning point of view to have. Yes scouting should be important, but losing because you couldn't scout what your opponent is doing is stupid. I mean, you scout your opponent last on a 4 player map - should you lose for that? Starcraft 2 is too complex and interesting a game for it to be decided by random chance, depending on what build orders people use. Show nested quote +
During beta tests, small groups of players often arrive at conclusions concerning a topic and, even though their assertion may no longer be the case, they just can’t let go. We encourage everyone to be more open minded in actually discussing and testing changes during this beta so that we can work towards having the best possible StarCraft II.
While this is true for players, it's also true for developers. Show nested quote +
Mothership Core Photon Overcharge
We’ve been exploring a change to how this ability works based on your suggestions. Our current change is for the ability costs less, to only be cast on Pylons, and to no longer have siege range. We’re seeing a lot more interaction with this ability use due to this change, because now there are lots of decisions to be made on both sides.
The offensive use of overcharge might be interesting... Show nested quote +
Colossus
We heard your feedback that the Colossus nerf was too much, and regarding Colossi having a more general role like they do in Heart of the Swarm. We’ve been testing Colossus in combination with Disruptors and the results are cool so far. We started playtesting with their upgraded range back to 9, and the combination of the redesigned Disruptors supported by Colossi looks to be going well.
The range is but one of many things that can be changed on the colossus. Please don't focus only on one area. How about a movement speed change? How about a rate of fire change? How about changing the build time? Seems like they don't know what they're trying to do with this unit. Show nested quote +
Adept
We agree that early game Adepts can be a bit too powerful, and we would like to see a greater variety in Protoss army compositions. We have been trying various suggestions internally, and are leaning towards changing their cost from 100/25 to 75/50. This will slow down how many Adepts can be massed early on, and in the later stages of the game, it’ll be more of a commitment when going heavy Adepts. Another benefit that we’re seeing in the late game is that the army composition becomes more diverse due to the minerals-to-gas ratio. We will continue reviewing this internally and hopefully get it out to the beta if testing continues to go well.
Adepts are too tough. Zealots are the tanking unit for protoss (which is why they feel like they've lost their role). Adepts should be much weaker, but do more damage. Zealots can tank, sentries can protect. If you want more tanking, build zealots. If you want more protection, build sentries. If you want more damage, build adepts. Show nested quote +
Ravager Upgrade
We’re playing around with a new Ravager upgrade internally that increases the cast range of Corrosive Bile from 9 to 13. The idea here is to have a stronger counter to Siege Tank and entice Terran players to use different unit compositions depending on how the Zerg is playing. For example, if Zerg is going heavy Hydra/Lurkers, units like Liberators or Siege Tanks would be stronger, whereas if Zerg is going heavy Roach/Ravagers, Siege Tanks or Liberators might not be as strong as other units such as Cyclones or speed-upgraded Banshees.
Zerg already have counters to the siege tank (vipers). They want to change siege tanks into useless units again? I guess get a couple of tanks early for siege tank drop harass then never again? Because that's what I think about when I think of siege tanks - mobile drop harass units. Show nested quote +
Further Learnings From Internal Testing- Reducing the number of workers per base so that army sizes become bigger
When trying out this change, we determined that reducing the workers needed per base isn’t good for the game because many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment. With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful. If by coolest moments you mean workers getting killed by OP harassment units that force players to keep the majority of their army at home to defend, then sure. My take on it is that super powerful harassment combined with the need to build 60+ workers is the primary cause of death-ball play, because both these things cause players to be passive/defensive. With less need to build workers (and if harass wasn't as strong), people could build army units earlier and move them out on the map. Also, how does having more workers make losing workers more meaningful? If you have 60 workers and lose 5, isn't that less of a big deal than if you have 40 and you lose 5? The less workers you have, the larger percentage of your income you lose when one dies. If they still want to make losing workers more "meaningful", they can make them take longer to build, but I don't see this as a problem and don't understand their logic. Show nested quote +
We also looked into feedback suggesting we reduce the efficiency of workers when more than 1 is mining at a single mineral patch. This was aimed at making expanding result in a higher income more often than not, even when on an equal worker count. What we found is that expanding quickly and often already feels like a big advantage in Void, so this change does not feel all that different in terms of when you want to expand. Also, when you do expand faster and have your workers more spread out, it’s easier to replenish workers that you’ve lost to harassment. As we stated above, this is the opposite of what we’re looking to accomplish with the economy changes.
What people don't like is that you are forced to expand in LotV, rather than it being an optional strategy. What you are essentially saying is that you agree that reducing the efficiency of workers will bring about the result you want, but you won't do it because you've come up with another way to do it (that nobody seems to like). How about you try reducing mining efficiency and revert mineral patches back to how they are in HotS?
I didn't have the time to write anything extensive. But essentially this is EXACTLY how I feel as well.
David Kim, READ THIS POST and listen to his (Quineotio's) input.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
We’re playing around with a new Ravager upgrade internally that increases the cast range of Corrosive Bile from 9 to 13. The idea here is to have a stronger counter to Siege Tank
Oh holy fuck i missed that part
please no more siege tank counters from zerg and protoss, the unit is already too weak at its primary role (securing space and slow-pushing) - when "Mech" is mentioned, it usually has heavy emphasis on other units. Warhounds, hellbats, mines. Vikings are made as an alternative to goliaths and tanks have definately taken a back seat - the current versions of disruptor (too much range) and this ravagar change is just making that far worse.
+1 for that post, pretty much everything is spot on. Adepts already hit very hard though (and that's very good) - they just hit nothing against Armored. Feels like pre-hellbat hellions against roaches.
|
Fuck NO , no more swarm host buffs ... just please let it dead ...
|
Regarding Heart of the Swarm Mech/Swarm Host Balance Test Map
I think an important thing is not taking in consideration.
I remember when Z players said Ravens were imba. Actually they were pretty good, in a HUGE number ( 15/20 which is a very important amount of gaz and they are pretty fragile to any fungul which any good players use if ravens are in game ) at the end of the game. But pro players could easily avoid the seeker missiles.
But now with the nerf of pdd I saw pro player would rather use BCS.
They are way more effective and way less fragile.
Now I saw players on chat during SSL and GSL matches saying Mech is way too much imba against Zerg ( with bcs instead of ravens )
And they were asking the return of swarm hosts.
Ok no pb but get back the normal duration of Pdd.
And on the last GSL/SSL matches, mech vs zerg wasn't so imba since a lot of terrans got eliminated.
For me the most important games to prove what I mean is Fantasy vs Byul lately played.
I remember all Z players on chat said terran mech imba, we need swarm host etc...
Byul was losing against mech.
I said on chat he just has to use more vipers. He lost 2 games using only 2 vipers they got killed before to arrive in the fight.
That was ridiculous to complain about that.
Meanwhile the last game he made 9/10 vipers byul rekted completely fantasy's army.
So imo it is stupid to think Ravens is imba if 20 at end game, and vipers too underpowered if only 2 in a game and got killed by vikings before to use their abilities.*
Just make more and they will be so effective and terran mech will be easily killed.
Especially if z players use mobility of nydus as Dark did.
With mech repositionning his army when nydus arrives in the main at the place of factories production is a terrible thing.
|
On August 22 2015 09:50 Quineotio wrote:Show nested quote +
Further Learnings From Internal Testing- Reducing the number of workers per base so that army sizes become bigger
When trying out this change, we determined that reducing the workers needed per base isn’t good for the game because many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment. With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful. If by coolest moments you mean workers getting killed by OP harassment units that force players to keep the majority of their army at home to defend, then sure. My take on it is that super powerful harassment combined with the need to build 60+ workers is the primary cause of death-ball play, because both these things cause players to be passive/defensive. With less need to build workers (and if harass wasn't as strong), people could build army units earlier and move them out on the map.
One big point I disagree with in this post:
Harassment isn't the cause of deathballs, it's the alternative. When you build an army and attack, there's three things you can try to kill:
-his army
-his production/tech buildings
-his economy
If you want your army to kill his army, you put them all in one spot and make the strongest, deathball-iest composition you can, and then you go fight win. If you want to kill his production/tech buildings, you do a two pronged attack to draw his army out of position and then snipe a forge or spawning pool or a bunch of add-ons or something. If you want to kill his economy, you attack all over the map, killing workers and bases without ever engaging head-on. Harassment is the third option, and the least prone to death balls.
That said, I think I'd prefer harassment be a bigger supply sink (e.g. a medivac full of marines) rather than just being really expensive (e.g. oracle or banshee).
|
On August 22 2015 14:19 bObA wrote:
Regarding Heart of the Swarm Mech/Swarm Host Balance Test Map
I think an important thing is not taking in consideration.
I remember when Z players said Ravens were imba. Actually they were pretty good, in a HUGE number ( 15/20 which is a very important amount of gaz and they are pretty fragile to any fungul which any good players use if ravens are in game ) at the end of the game. But pro players could easily avoid the seeker missiles.
But now with the nerf of pdd I saw pro player would rather use BCS.
They are way more effective and way less fragile.
Now I saw players on chat during SSL and GSL matches saying Mech is way too much imba against Zerg ( with bcs instead of ravens )
And they were asking the return of swarm hosts.
Ok no pb but get back the normal duration of Pdd.
And on the last GSL/SSL matches, mech vs zerg wasn't so imba since a lot of terrans got eliminated.
For me the most important games to prove what I mean is Fantasy vs Byul lately played.
I remember all Z players on chat said terran mech imba, we need swarm host etc...
Byul was losing against mech.
I said on chat he just has to use more vipers. He lost 2 games using only 2 vipers they got killed before to arrive in the fight.
That was ridiculous to complain about that.
Meanwhile the last game he made 9/10 vipers byul rekted completely fantasy's army.
So imo it is stupid to think Ravens is imba if 20 at end game, and vipers too underpowered if only 2 in a game and got killed by vikings before to use their abilities.*
Just make more and they will be so effective and terran mech will be easily killed.
Especially if z players use mobility of nydus as Dark did.
With mech repositionning his army when nydus arrives in the main at the place of factories production is a terrible thing.
Agree.
Adding to the nydus thing, I don't like how in HotS they die so easily, but I also don't like how in LotV they are invulnerable until they spawn. I think there are a couple of possible better solutions. First option is a simple health buff to the nydus (but let them be attacked while spawning). This would still allow for counterplay, but make nydus arrive more often. Second option, allow multiple worms to be built at once, which allows the zerg player to increase the likelihood a nydus will survive at the cost of more money.
|
I like the new macro changes more than I expected, it feels more simplified.
Terran standard traditional rts build and queue
Protoss a mix of warp in and build queue
Zerg with larva and creep (and spread overlord if thats considered macro)
On the other hand I find the new warp in very strange to play with. It needs a lot more polishing
As for ravaged range buff, I think it's worth a try, one more option for Zerg doesn't hurt as long as it isn't too hard countered which I think can be balanced out fine
|
On August 22 2015 14:32 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 09:50 Quineotio wrote:
Further Learnings From Internal Testing- Reducing the number of workers per base so that army sizes become bigger
When trying out this change, we determined that reducing the workers needed per base isn’t good for the game because many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment. With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful. If by coolest moments you mean workers getting killed by OP harassment units that force players to keep the majority of their army at home to defend, then sure. My take on it is that super powerful harassment combined with the need to build 60+ workers is the primary cause of death-ball play, because both these things cause players to be passive/defensive. With less need to build workers (and if harass wasn't as strong), people could build army units earlier and move them out on the map. Harassment isn't the cause of deathballs, it's the alternative.
No, it is a cause. David Kim shares your belief, which is why despite the fact that there are extremely powerful harassment options in SC2, there are still deathballs. Why would you bother moving your entire army out onto the map when you can just send a couple of oracles? Why would you move out when your opponent could drop your base and kill you as soon as you leave? The most reliable strategies in SC2 involve a strong defense against harass (i.e. keeping your army at home), while using powerful harassment units to gain a decisive advantage, then attacking with your entire army.
If you didn't have to worry about losing your mineral line every time you move your army out, you could leave your army in more offensive positions, like at your opponent's third, or controlling an important path in the middle of the map. As it stands, the further you are from your base, the greater the risk of losing the game due to a harass unit that represents a relatively small investment by the opponent. Basically in SC2, they have traded army vs army for harass vs harass.
The other cause of death-balls is of course the economy. If you're weak early game, but strong late game, it makes sense to play for the late game. With the current economy, Protoss and Terran mech can both easily play defensively until 3 bases, which is enough of an economy to max out. The counter to this should be for the opponent to take more bases and get an economic lead, and translate that lead into a unit advantage. But the 3 base cap minimizes the economic counter.
So because Protoss/Terran mech can't be punished for playing to their strengths, and because they both have powerful, low cost harassment options, they play the death-ball style of game we all love to hate.
That said, I think I'd prefer harassment be a bigger supply sink (e.g. a medivac full of marines) rather than just being really expensive (e.g. oracle or banshee).
Yes, harass should be a bigger supply sink - ideally it should involve your entire army. At the moment, both players defend until the big fight at the end. The best game are the ones where entire armies are moving around the map.
One of the biggest mistakes Blizzard made with SC2 was giving drop and heal to the same unit. Terran needs healing, but when they get healing they get drop for free. They've done a reasonable job of balancing this, but bio armies will always have to be weak in head to head engagements to make up for the fact that their army is so mobile. Dropping should be an option for terran, but it shouldn't be the default option. Personally I'd rather if terran has a stronger bio army without free drop tech, because it would mean less mineral line drops and more fights in the middle. It would also make it more exciting when terran did drop, because it'd be a riskier strategy. At the moment, losing a medivac doesn't matter that much because you're always building more anyway.
|
But if you can harass and keep your army at home to defend against your opponent's harass, surely it would be stronger to defend the harass with only a small force, attack in one place, and harass in another. That way your opponent has to defend your push, and they can't defend your harass as well. This is how non-deathball armies generally work, and without strong harassment options, those styles don't work. Instead they're forced to instead just go for straight up strong units, and try to win deathball v. deathball.
I'm confused, you dislike deathballs but you want bio to be less harass-focused and better as a deathball? Those seem antithetical to me.
Have you really had a big problem with people camping on three bases? The new economy seems so punishing for that kind of play.
|
On August 22 2015 15:33 ChristianS wrote:
But if you can harass and keep your army at home to defend against your opponent's harass, surely it would be stronger to defend the harass with only a small force, attack in one place, and harass in another. That way your opponent has to defend your push, and they can't defend your harass as well. This is how non-deathball armies generally work, and without strong harassment options, those styles don't work. Instead they're forced to instead just go for straight up strong units, and try to win deathball v. deathball.
I'm confused, you dislike deathballs but you want bio to be less harass-focused and better as a deathball? Those seem antithetical to me.
Have you really had a big problem with people camping on three bases? The new economy seems so punishing for that kind of play.
You are describing an idealistic view of what you think the game should be, not what the game is. If harass was the solution to death-balls, we would no longer have death-balls.
I didn't say I want terran bio to be a death-ball, I said I think drop tech should be separate from heal tech and terran bio should be buffed. This would serve the role of reducing the strength of drop harass and making it less common, and make terran bio more useful in engagements on the map and therefore more likely to be used in that role, and also remove some of the dissincentive for the opponent to move their army onto the map because they are less likely to be backstabbed.
|
|
|
Really starting to feel like Terran is a broken race. Like, every design post is "we needed to change this so they could stand up to Terran". So.. They add overpowered Terran stuff, make everyone powerful as a counter, then nerf Terran. Feels like MAYBE you should just do something more with Terran
|
Good to see they noticed the mech problem and are willing to do something about it before the new expansion and not make the same mistake they did with BL Infestor.
|
Below is my realistic wish-list. The type of changes that could improve balance and David Kim might actually implement (and that isn't mentioned in his post from yesterday).
Terran
Siege tank reduced to 2 supply
Hellion and Hellbat reduced to 75 minerals. HP reduced by 10 and 20 respectively.
Marauder cost changed to 75/50 from 100/25
Planetary cost increased (to disincentivize players from building Planetary at their 3rd).
Zerg
Infestor receives new ability that "counters" Cyclones (would make sense that the Infestor gets an actual role and that the Viper isn't just better at everything).
Protoss
Warp Prism now takes 16 seconds to warp in by default as well. Upgrade at Robo Bay added that reduces it to 2 seconds.
|
On August 22 2015 17:43 KaZeFenrir wrote:
Really starting to feel like Terran is a broken race. Like, every design post is "we needed to change this so they could stand up to Terran". So.. They add overpowered Terran stuff, make everyone powerful as a counter, then nerf Terran. Feels like MAYBE you should just do something more with Terran
Every race is broken. Their design method is broken. They focus too much on fixing high level problems and not enough on fixing the fundamental aspects of the game. For example, the recent macro change (which i think is a change in the right direction) should have been introduced right at the beginning of the beta. They essentially wasted the first few months of beta because all balance has now changed.
The ultralisk is another good example of bad design methodology. I posted about the ultralisk elsewhere, but essentially their attempt to fix the ultralisk created a new problem, which they then tried to fix by changing the ghost. Instead of chasing their tail, why didn't they try a version of the ultralisk that didn't break the game? I mean they recognized that the high armor they had just given to ultras was a problem, so they decide to give an anti armor drone to the ghost?
So damn frustrating reading their community feedback and getting condescending stuff like this:
Before we begin, we’d like to send a shout-out to the highest level pro-gamers out there in Korea who are always looking to find new strategies, counters to those strategies, and doing all they can to find solutions to obstacles within the game. It is both inspiring and admirable to see top end players who work through significant adversity to adapt and find new strategies and tactics. In many of the top-end pro-level HotS games this week, we saw lots of interesting counters to certain strategies that were seen as unbeatable, and it was awesome to be reminded that there are players out there who will explore things to find their own solutions rather than immediately jumping to extreme conclusions.
What is that if not a dig at the community?
Thank you for discussions in this area this week. The main points that could contribute to the “gimmicky” feelings point toward offensive warp-ins, which should be addressed with this week’s patch. So overall, this is potentially a non-issue if testing goes smoothly with the new changes.
Do they really think that the community feels protoss is gimmicky because of offensive warp-ins? To me, all they are doing with the community feedback is confirming what we already suspect - that they don't know what they're doing, or understand what the community wants. It feels like they're communicating because they have to, not because they want to or value our feedback.
|
i agree with the first paragraph of this post. All we can say here is broodwar. The game has been untouched since forever and people are still finding new strats and ways to kill those imba builds. The recent tourney of this game show us. The game looks totally changed from when i used to play it back when i was a lad!
People are too quick to judge the balance and its mainly down to the fact that their 'gm stated ALLin' doesnt work any more so they 'cri erry timez'. Sometimes i think as much as people go on about broodwar in this community the more suspect im becomming to many users ever having played it at all. SC2 goes through too many changes too quickly imo. No! Buying it a few years a go from the legacy games section of blizz doesnt count as you playing and remembering it.
As for the patch here, all i can say here is archon mode. Me and my friend are beginning to play it as a coach tool. we play solo other guy suggests and we have beaten all of these unkillable builds that way. When we see it going bad i take a very small excursion to see if i can even the odds in some way while he carries on with his game. Its amazing how the ideas open up and how differently we view the game when we do this and with the combined knowledge we have won some pretty impossible situations. The game has never been more exciting as it has been right now. Me personally would love to see weekends where they revert the game, or a testmap back to the infester/brood, adeptAllin, widowmine/hellbat/vac patches and im going to put my house on it that we would find a way to beat it all.
Anyway. im done now!
|
lol autobuild-units...
that they even think about this...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
