Community Feedback Update - September 10 - Page 16

On September 12 2015 11:10 nottapro wrote:
Remove inject, mules and chrono completely. Re-balance and don't look back.

On September 12 2015 11:10 nottapro wrote:
Remove inject, mules and chrono completely. Re-balance and don't look back.

On September 12 2015 11:53 Lexender wrote:


I think he meant to remove them and then balance around that

On September 12 2015 09:46 Blackfeather wrote:

Tbh you just have to gather experience and then sh*t on the pro-scene. Every major change is going to make some people's earnings from the game null, but the game dying because of design decisions that was made at the start and that is clearly bad is going to kill everybody's income from the game.

Dota 2 is a good example, it kills it's meta about once per year.


Not sure how serious that post was, first you say that you liked most of the changes, then you say that they should take all those changes back because you didnt like two of them?

I like auto-cast (or an aura) way more than queue as well though, bc queue still requires you to pay attention or have some drawbacks (more queens/hatch). The whole "people have acquired a skill that we arent using if we take the mechanics out"-talk is really unbased. Who cares if people acquired a dog-training-skill, people in two or three years will be thankful not to have to learn this, but instead will be able to concentrate on things that should be more important, like the actual battlefield f.e..

On September 12 2015 12:08 CptMarvel wrote:


I wish more people were using Dota 2 as an inspiration. The baldness with which IceFrog has been redesigning his game in the past few years is amazing.

On September 12 2015 11:56 stuchiu wrote:


you'd have to change the very fundamentals of each unit from the ling up.

It's not just changing numbers, its changing all unit interactions.

On September 12 2015 13:43 ZenithM wrote:

Can you give the basis of why you think that or is "complete redesign" just the safer thing to say in this case?
I don't really see why it would break the game so much that you couldn't fix it with some number changes.

On September 12 2015 14:36 stuchiu wrote:


Starting off with the basics:

Mules give the bonus income needed to make large amounts of bio early on which is why bio has been viable vs both Zerg and Protoss. Remove that and you dont get the mineral boost you need to create the same amount of marines needed to get the same type of uni interactions of previous games.

So if you still want Bio to be viable you'd need to redesign how the unit interactions work, the range, hp cost, how many marines are needed to take out a ling/zealot/stalker/adept, etc.

Same thing with inject. Instead of being constrained by minerals however, it is constrained by larvae. Lings/Bling play vs Terran or Protoss is based on flooding the field with weaker more mobile units that can overwhelm Terran.

On September 12 2015 14:16 CheddarToss wrote:
The new chrono is worse than the old one, because it doesn't speed up unit production, only probe production and tech.

On September 12 2015 15:20 Cyro wrote:


It speeds up unit production too, it just hardly affects it. Four seconds off a 27 second adept

On September 12 2015 15:37 Cyro wrote:
8 is on the low side for ~65 probe economy :D

On September 12 2015 15:01 a_flayer wrote:


Excuse me for selectively quoting, but it sounds like they cancel each other out pretty well ^^

You can't make as many marines, and you can't make as many lings/banelings. Balance!

On September 12 2015 14:36 stuchiu wrote:
Starting off with the basics:

Mules give the bonus income needed to make large amounts of bio early on which is why bio has been viable vs both Zerg and Protoss. Remove that and you dont get the mineral boost you need to create the same amount of marines needed to get the same type of uni interactions of previous games.

So if you still want Bio to be viable you'd need to redesign how the unit interactions work, the range, hp cost, how many marines are needed to take out a ling/zealot/stalker/adept, etc.

Same thing with inject. Instead of being constrained by minerals however, it is constrained by larvae. Lings/Bling play vs Terran or Protoss is based on flooding the field with weaker more mobile units that can overwhelm T/P. If inject is removed you essentially cut that dynamic making all ling/bling useless. For an example, in LotV I was constantly beating adept all-ins with just mass ling/bling pre macro-mechanic removal. Post macro-mechanic removal, I ended up with half the units and was constantly being beaten by losing to just adept pressure builds.

So the first question you have to ask is, is Bio play or ling/bling play something that is important to the identity of Starcraft.

If yes, then move on to part 2.

Then secondly you have to ask how do you just balance the numbers to retain some kind of similar dynamic. Are you going to just buff the hp, range and dps so that they are useful again in place of the fact you cant make a large amount of bio? If you do that, it still doesnt retain the identity of mass drops, multitask, aggression players like Gumiho or Maru as you just cant do it with less units.

And then you run into problems of them being too strong vs Mech in TvT, Zerg roach/ravager/ling/bling in TvZ or perhaps too strong in TvP. You're going to do what buff the other units then too? You do that and you can start creating even more problems in other matchups without fixing the core problems of the first matchup and at best you just end up back at square one.

The exact same thing applies to Zerg as you'd need to buff the zergling to make it cost effective to make it worth the time for a Zerg to actually use the unit. The ling becomes too strong just so it can deal with adepts, itll shred both mech and bio. And then you go into the constant changing flux of having to balance/design every unit and unit interaction.

In terms of pure number, a person might think making a marine as strong as 4 marines would mean it would therefore be the same. It isnt. It doesnt take into account the increments of what you can do in multiple units, the positioning in time possible and how the flexibility of not having a lot of small scale units can have on a game or battle.

Finally, a lot of ppl keep bringing p the argument, oh just change the numbers and it'll all work out. But no one has actually come forward with any numbers because it isnt a simple thing to do where you just keep plugging it in and seeing if it works out. There are too many minute details to take into account when making changes like this from unit interactions, economy, strategy, tactics, unit compositions, amount of units, map, game length, game speed, game tempo, etc.

It is all connected. Everything a player does in SC2 has repercussions on every other aspect of the game, unlike a gun in CS, or a hero/item in LoL/Dota2.

On September 12 2015 08:02 Lexender wrote:
The macro boosters change was so fucking good, its really sad that because a part of the community was crying so hard (lets face it, after those post on reddit about which korean players DK talked at the summit people were basically calling him a liar and searching for any reason to shit on him) the change was reverted

I also agree with a lot of what other have said, its not about making the game easier (as a multiplayer game the game will ways be as hard as good is your opponent) but make it better and the removal of macro boosters was deffinitively a much better design, LotV is already faster and harder than HotS, both macro and micro wise, this just encourages the build 20 min then attack but with games being slightly faster