Hello everyone – we’re back with another community feedback update. We’ve got a number of changes to discuss, so let’s jump into it!
Next step for macro mechanics Our team’s been a close to a 50-50 split on whether or not we should revert the macro mechanics to be the same as Heart of the Swarm or continue pursuing this direction. After many discussions, we realized that, at the root of it, it boils down to this: Are we chasing the best design for each of these mechanics or is taking away a skill that players have been practicing for years better for the game in the long-term? Let’s take a look at each of the macro mechanics:
Terran Mule After testing various versions, we’ve realized that we’re not really making mule macro all that much easier, since it was already fairly easy to execute in HotS. In terms of design, however, we believe losing the energy tension with the Orbital Command spells is not a good thing. Therefore, both in terms of saving clicks and in terms of better design, we believe the HotS one is better, and we’d like to go back to it . For the late game mule spamming issue, if we were to go back to HotS, we would need to do something about it. The current thought is to not have Mules overlap with other Mules on patches so that the Mule dropping in the later stages of the game doesn’t get so out of hand.
Protoss Chrono Boost With the version currently in the beta, chronoboost is cast by the Nexus closest to the target, and there are suggestions to change that to other methods. One thing we’re noticing here is there’s really no ideal way to handle how we move the Chrono Boosts around - no matter which rule set we go with, we haven’t found a way to always guarantee an optimal use case. Therefore, we believe it’s best to just increase the cooldown of the ability so that it’s easier to not make a mistake in terms of the same Nexus recasting Chronoboost on multiple things in quick succession.
One other thing to note here is that one of our core design values in StarCraft II is to only make changes that are significant improvements. The reason is that if something is only a slight improvement to an existing thing, we don’t believe it warrants players having to relearn that mechanic. Therefore, for Protoss, it’ll be a question of exactly how much of an improvement this new version would be versus the old one.
Zerg Spawn Larva This mechanic is the most difficult because, design-wise, the current version is arguably better, however players are losing a skill they’ve been practicing for years, which isn't ideal. Internally, we’re testing a different version for Zerg. We currently have autocast removed, but it is possible to stack Spawn Larva on a Hatchery. E.g. I can cast Spawn Larva three times on the same Hatchery at the same time, and each one will pop one after another. This might be closer to what we’re looking for: For a top-end pro player to gain the maximum effect of Spawn Larva, he’ll need to be as precise with the casts as he needs to be in HotS, but lower-level players who aren’t close to mastering this technique will have a much easier time with this version.
Because this is such a major change, we’ve been going through major iterations during the beta. We’d like to thank you guys once again for the continued discussions, playtesting, and feedback in this area. This really gives a good example of how we iterate and explore various things internally and it’s cool having everyone be a part of this.Please try to focus your feedback on which version is best for the game, and let us know so that we can make a good decision.
Adept With the stronger Terran and Zerg macro mechanics in the latest patch, we’re not really seeing the same Adept strength that we used to. Also in exploring PvP more, it’s not quite clear to us that mass Adepts are the best composition in the later stages of the game. We will be continuing to test the Adept armored flag change and potential changes to their upgrade internally, but we’d like to continue testing the current version a bit longer in the beta.
We just don’t want to be too quick to judge on the Adept strength at this point, because it’s not uncommon for players to overreact when core units are added. One good example here is when the Marauder was first introduced back in Wings of Liberty, for a very long time, even after the game launched, we were getting so much feedback, especially from Korean players, that Marauders were completely broken and needed to be nerfed. We never did nerf them, but they’ve been seen as well balanced all throughout HotS.
Photon Overcharge The defensive case with Photon Overcharge in the early to mid -game is too strong right now. It’s too difficult to do both harassment type and frontal type attacks against Protoss in the early game. Obviously, this is not what we want from the new ability, so we’re exploring potential nerfs. We’re thinking of either doing a duration nerf to 10-15 seconds, or a cost nerf to 50. We’re slightly leaning towards a duration nerf at the moment because it is a lot more adjustable going forward as we fine-tune the balance of this ability. Though we currently were not concerned with offensive Pylon rushes, this nerf will weaken this tactic.
Overlord transport upgrade We’ve explored a few different options here, but your popular suggestion of having an Evolution Chamber requirement looks to have worked out well. It’s an additional investment in order to be able to drop early, doesn’t necessarily reduce the timing at when Zerg can drop, and it’s easier to scout and react against. We would most likely try this out in the next balance update. Thank you for your many suggestions.
Disruptor We’re playing around with different cost versions of the Disruptor so that it’s not as heavy of a gas investment. The general idea here is to reduce the gas cost needed so that Disruptors can see more play across the board. We’ll try to finalize the numbers for the next balance update.
Maps in Legacy of the Void As we’ve done multiple times in the past, we definitely know that if a map isn’t completely standard, a majority of players will initially think it’s a bad map. However, this is one of the areas that we would really like to push back because the positive effects of having a more diverse map pool is just too good for the game. We see this in HotS season 3 and even more so in the various tournaments going on in LotV, in terms of how different each map plays.
Therefore, we will continue pushing a unique and diverse map pool in LotV for now. We’ve clearly seen how stale the game becomes both in terms of playing and watching when we’ve had map pools that everyone agrees is ‘good.’ The matches are all very standard and similar in terms of playstyle, and we want to clearly avoid this from ever happening again. We feel strongly on this point: A truly good map pool for SC2 is one with lots of map diversity, not a map pool that has 7 of the same type of standard maps.
With that said, because we are constantly exploring new things that can potentially be cool for the game, obviously there is a higher chance of making a mistake. Maps such as Daedalus Point are examples of something that we tried that didn’t work out. However, we believe the positives that we gain from pushing map diversity outweigh the negatives. If necessary, it’s easy to remove a map that doesn’t work out mid-season, and we’ve seen from experience this doesn’t happen on a regular basis.
Thank you everyone for the continued help and support during the development of Legacy of the Void. We are looking forward to hearing your constructive thoughts.
Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
I guess we're going to get something fairly reasonable in the end. It's like watching a thought process that could be done in twenty seconds being painstakingly extended longer and longer.
Fine tuning, I'm waiting for you. And yeah, warpgate change sucks, split energy and warp-in power.
RIP no macro mechanics... Removing them was the best thing that ever happened to sc2, and all we needed was some rebalancing... But blizzard too lazy, prob being pushed to release the game too early, and reverting everything back to HotS status.
So disappointed
Also, on the larva stack... Do they not realize people are just going to make a ton of queen and keep infinity stacking larva on the same hatch? How is that ever gonna work lmao... That cannot be balanced
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
Yeah. Its like... They are using the beta to make tests! How absurd is that?
Still BS that they claim their going to "handle the late game mule issue" and their fix for not stacking on minerals isn't going to make all that much of a difference. The problem is the fact that players still can be REWARDED for FORGETTING to drop mules... Which makes their whole logic as bringing back mules a silly argument... "Not really making macro that much easier"... of course not! Because mules took very little work to begin with relative to other races, and got the most reward for completely forgetting about their mechanics..
Zerg changes are equally retarded... they ADMIT the new version is better design. So why bring back a badly designed mechanic??? If players need a "skill" to master why not make a skill that contributes to the game strategically??? But no... lets bring back a mechanic that was relatively unbalanced since the beginning, and is admittedly badly designed...
Risk vs reward is still skewed, not to mention the obvious exploits...
On September 11 2015 03:15 [PkF] Wire wrote: I guess we're going to get something fairly reasonable in the end. It's like watching a thought process that could be done in twenty seconds being painstakingly extended longer and longer.
Fine tuning, I'm waiting for you. And yeah, warpgate change sucks, split energy and warp-in power.
I liked how it is now, a lot people do, at the end I think they were just trying, but since a part of the playbase is so hell-bend on the way they think and are against changing what they consider "traditional RTS" they decided to not go through.
Either I hope they come with good solutions instead of being preassured into reverting everything.
I'm not sure if they have thought the inject suggestion through properly... So if I build 6queens and inject a hatchery 6times, I'm done injecting for 40seconds*6=4mins. And still get 4larva per inject? Well, ok?! So I get perfect injects through building multiple queens... and get to keep the 4 larva per inject?
On September 11 2015 03:23 ffadicted wrote: Also, on the larva stack... Do they not realize people are just going to make a ton of queen and keep infinity stacking larva on the same hatch? How is that ever gonna work lmao... That cannot be balanced
My thought exactly. We are going to see like 20 queens per base. Its like building additional barracks that can attack, heal and spawn creep. They can also become invisible (burrow) and move.
On September 11 2015 03:15 [PkF] Wire wrote: I guess we're going to get something fairly reasonable in the end. It's like watching a thought process that could be done in twenty seconds being painstakingly extended longer and longer.
Fine tuning, I'm waiting for you. And yeah, warpgate change sucks, split energy and warp-in power.
I liked how it is now, a lot people do, at the end I think they were just trying, but since a part of the playbase is so hell-bend on the way they think and are against changing what they consider "traditional RTS" they decided to not go through.
Either I hope they come with good solutions instead of being preassured into reverting everything.
It's not the pressure or the rush that is wrong, it's the damn fact they tried to remove something as game changing as the macro mechanics 5 months into the beta. You'd think those people would have some insight, and try those huge magnitude changes in the early stages. But no, we wasted 5 months, add 3 weeks to that now... And yeah they're going to rush it to still get a post Blizzcon release.
On September 11 2015 03:37 Tuczniak wrote: There is still a limit to larva per hatchery ~ 19. So 20 queens on one base won't work. But 3 could work.
The injects pop one after another. As I understand it, you just inject 20times and then produce as usual whenever one inject pops and the next timer begins.
On September 11 2015 03:23 ffadicted wrote: RIP no macro mechanics... Removing them was the best thing that ever happened to sc2, and all we needed was some rebalancing... But blizzard too lazy, prob being pushed to release the game too early, and reverting everything back to HotS status.
So disappointed
Also, on the larva stack... Do they not realize people are just going to make a ton of queen and keep infinity stacking larva on the same hatch? How is that ever gonna work lmao... That cannot be balanced
I'm sure it will be balanced accordingly just like Spawn Larvae was.
Kind of uh, disappointed? There is still sooooo many issues going on with the game for all races and these updates just seem to be focusing on reverting changes that were excellent for the game which in and of itself is a huge disappointment.
Zerg - Infestors are still unviable i don't care what the trolls say, this unit is crap especially compared to the mighty Templar, fungal Growth is shit for how hard it is to land and how much risk it puts your Infestors in and NP is just wtf still in the game 4 years later. - Ultralisks are still a move/bad pathing and now they are just OP in ZvZ and vs. bio end game - Overlord drop is still stupid and should be moved to Overseer - Zerg anti air is still shit Corruptors barely edge out over Liberators - Corruptor ability is still thoughtless and lazy
Terran - Cylone is still a complete garbage no skill unit that should just be changed to the damn Goliath - The Thor is still in the game even though Liberators shit on Mutalisks plenty good on their own - Tanks are still awful - Medivac tank pick up is probably the dumbest thing I've ever seen besides the Cyclone/warhound and only signifies David Kim's infatuation with "fancy micro plays" instead of actual solid unit roles. - What the fuck is up with the Ghost right now? The new ability is really dumb - Why are Marauders still nerfed? They were never OP to begin with, removing Concussive would have been WAY smarter for balance/design. - Why has the Liberator not been nerfed appropriately? It's role totally overlaps with the Thor and Viking it's just really really stupid to have a unit that is so damn good at everything. Even if there are ways to deal with it, why not just remove the Thor and Viking and have the Liberator be the de facto Starport unit in that case?
Protoss - Adepts are still OP in the early game especially vs. Terran and still fall off hard past the midgame - Immortal active is probably the laziest change I've seen ever - Warp Prisms are STUPID strong especially on maps with lots of air space - Disruptors seem like half way balanced but the cool down is kind of wtf during bigger fights - Voidray is still a noob a move unit that either gets shut down or highlights how bad Zerg anti air can truly be - MSC is still a hero unit in a complex RTS = bad
There is alot of things that need to be done and all this update said to me was "We have no clue what we are doing at this point so we are just trying to make everything viable and make every unit at least semi usable and uh, well good luck have fun please keep testing because we are lost".
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
Agreed. I'm generally a Blizzard cheerleader compared to most TL posters but this just screams "We'd like to but it will be too much work." I was genuinely excited to see macro mechanics gone. It should reveal the player with better army movement, army micro, army positioning and all those user-apparent reasons to win. But now since they're just going back to HotS mechanics we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win. This is lazy.
none of this matters if the econ is still the trash it is, maybe, if they have realized the mistake theyve made with macro mechanics they now should realize that the new econ is hated by a lot of current players. so even if we were 50-50 theyd have to revert it or tune it to something that we all can find decent
On September 11 2015 03:42 Topin wrote: at least they try to make big changes (mechanics) in the game, but like Wire said, they should have tested it at the beginning of the beta.
On September 11 2015 03:45 Steelghost wrote: the new econ is hated by a lot of current players
Citation required. I think most people who actually play LotV prefer the economy to HotS for sure and it is more streamlined and elegant than most TL-submitted alternatives.
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
No it is not great for the same tired arguments both sides have been making since blizzard announced the removal
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
We should rename the genre to RTM real time mechanical game
This larvae stack idea deserves some merit, basically if you miss an inject, you can just double stack it thereby preventing energy buildup on queens without neccicitating macro hatches (btw this change effectively kills macro hatches period) concerns about the amount of larvae gained off individual hatches are illfounded, as money will always be the true limiter on zerg production / : and this change doesnt really make expanding that much easier. Could be worthwhile, well have to see. As for the argument about removing a skill thats been honed, I can symphathize on both sides. I have friends who are quite good at the game, that miss the sense of rythym that injects offered.
But I've also coached a few players, and it's really frustrating that thier few months of sc2 are just learning how to inject / : which at it's core is a pretty banal mechanic that has somehow wound up producing some pretty signifigant euphoria in those who can manage them. Personaly I'm fine ethier way and I'm happy to see blizz doing thier best not the alienate ethier side / : but at some point theyre gonna have to lean one way or the other and people are gonna be angry no matter which way that is.
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
We should rename the genre to RTM real time mechanical game
I have zero interest in people with great strategic thinking but no mechanics to back it up. I'm very happy with SC2 being a mechanically demanding game. If you disagree with that point of view that's absolutely fine, that's just a personal opinion, nothing to get upset about.
Not a big fan of pylon overcharge at all, I'd rather it didn't exist and let me try to defend some other way. I'm not so sure that it's needed for LotV as it was in HotS. The chronoboost cooldown is definitely needed, the new permanent chronos were a huge mess.
Since when does bending to the will of complaining players, have more merit than giving SC2 the best game design possible?? It's outrageous that they straight up admit the current Zerg mechanic has better design but are even thinking about reverting...
And either way of understanding the Zerg mechanic they offer is broken.
If you can pop 3 larvae on 1 hatch and all spawn at once, that can be exploited obviously.
If it goes off 1 at a time, Zerg is basically in the same boat as HotS, and Zerg has always had the short end of the stick when it comes to macro mechanics... and STILL will. But of course Terran can still drop 8 mules at once and get the reward of all Mules at once...
Regardless of either method, still BS that risk vs reward is so off. Terran have least risk and can forget about their mechanic past early game if they like, and the only racial mechanic that can literally save the game for them if they lose all SCV's...
On September 11 2015 03:54 Firkraag8 wrote: Not a big fan of pylon overcharge at all, I'd rather it didn't exist and let me try to defend some other way. I'm not so sure that it's needed for LotV as it was in HotS.
same I think working on an overcharge removal would be even more important than anything about macro mechanics, though toning them down would probably suit the pace of the game better as I said countless times.
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
On September 11 2015 03:49 TimeSpiral wrote: Hmmmm ... hopefully their internal conversations are not as vitriolic and negative as the ones here.
I doubt that they even have those. It is most likely something to pull of to shut down anything we don't like. "We did this internally and we did not like it". Literally we have seen this argument way too much during the beta.
On September 11 2015 03:23 ffadicted wrote: Also, on the larva stack... Do they not realize people are just going to make a ton of queen and keep infinity stacking larva on the same hatch? How is that ever gonna work lmao... That cannot be balanced
My thought exactly. We are going to see like 20 queens per base. Its like building additional barracks that can attack, heal and spawn creep. They can also become invisible (burrow) and move.
And take up supply. So you stack your hatcheries till no end to build 10 more zerglings as the rest of your army is in queens.
i like how you've got a whole bunch of people bitching about no macro mechanics and then a whole bunch of people bitching about having macro mechanics. blizz really can't win.
edit: good to see they aren't pandering to the idiots regarding the map pool. having only standard maps would be a terrible idea.
Really glad to hear macro mechanics could be coming back. I hope they don't do the stack inject method as it sounds wonky and conflicting with the point of the economy change. It feels like the idea of needing less hatcheries because you can stack larva on one conflicts with the economy change requiring players to increase base count.
Also REALLY glad they're moving overlord drop to evo tech. While I don't like the individual upgrade mechanic on overlords it seems like putting it in this way is the best way of doing it such that it doesn't conflict with the nydus worm.
On September 11 2015 04:02 -NegativeZero- wrote: i like how you've got a whole bunch of people bitching about no macro mechanics and then a whole bunch of people bitching about having macro mechanics. blizz really can't win.
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
We should rename the genre to RTM real time mechanical game
I have zero interest in people with great strategic thinking but no mechanics to back it up. I'm very happy with SC2 being a mechanically demanding game. If you disagree with that point of view that's absolutely fine, that's just a personal opinion, nothing to get upset about.
The problem, outside of making the game almost impossible to get into, is that it rewards only one style of play. Outside of some lucky un scouted timing attacks and cheese the mechanically superior player will just outright win all the time. Lets take the below radar chart. The person (since I was lazy aka "Series 1") will will a disproportionate amount of times compared to the other two players simply because he is superior at one facet of the game. The game should strive to reward all aptitudes not just simply muscle memory.
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
We should rename the genre to RTM real time mechanical game
I have zero interest in people with great strategic thinking but no mechanics to back it up. I'm very happy with SC2 being a mechanically demanding game. If you disagree with that point of view that's absolutely fine, that's just a personal opinion, nothing to get upset about.
The problem, outside of making the game almost impossible to get into, is that it rewards only one style of play. Outside of some lucky un scouted timing attacks and cheese the mechanically superior player will just outright win all the time. Lets take the below radar chart. The person (since I was lazy aka "Series 1") will will a disproportionate amount of times compared to the other two players simply because he is superior at one facet of the game. The game should strive to reward all aptitudes not just simply muscle memory.
Why would it reward only one style of play ? A mechanically sound player can still choose to go defensive (Rain vs Maru) or craft the perfect all-in to dismantle his opponent's predictable build (Polt vs Classic on Overgrowth). What I don't want to see is some 100 APM Protoss taking out games of INnoVation because he so obviously outsmarted him with his delayed oracle into delayed DTs.
Therefore, we believe it’s best to just increase the cooldown of the ability so that it’s easier to not make a mistake in terms of the same Nexus recasting Chronoboost on multiple things in quick succession.
Another change that makes it even harder to use for people with decent mechanics and maybe for new/infrequent players too. Oh i put it on the wrong thing? nvm can't move it
So is Protoss the only race left with an automated macro mechanic? I'm not sure how that will go over when people are already complaining about HotS Protoss being too easy.
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
I don't think you understand that they are actually balancing it. They balanced mules for lategame, they are working on a chrono fix, and they found a middle ground for injects.
But we have to face it, they are in crunch time for release and they all know they can't stay in MM limbo for another couple of weeks because it delays valuable development time. With the release of the new cinematic a couple days away I'm sure the higher-ups are pressuring the balance team non-stop. I honestly like these changes and I want to see where they go, and I hope most of the people here would agree to be open to all the changes blizz are making.
On September 11 2015 04:21 jalstar wrote: So is Protoss the only race left with an automated macro mechanic? I'm not sure how that will go over when people are already complaining about HotS Protoss being too easy.
I understand the last sentence of the paragraph about overcharge that they're willing to come back to the HotS version for CB too.
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
We should rename the genre to RTM real time mechanical game
I have zero interest in people with great strategic thinking but no mechanics to back it up. I'm very happy with SC2 being a mechanically demanding game. If you disagree with that point of view that's absolutely fine, that's just a personal opinion, nothing to get upset about.
The problem, outside of making the game almost impossible to get into, is that it rewards only one style of play. Outside of some lucky un scouted timing attacks and cheese the mechanically superior player will just outright win all the time. Lets take the below radar chart. The person (since I was lazy aka "Series 1") will will a disproportionate amount of times compared to the other two players simply because he is superior at one facet of the game. The game should strive to reward all aptitudes not just simply muscle memory.
Why would it reward only one style of play ? A mechanically sound player can still choose to go defensive (Rain vs Maru) or craft the perfect all-in to dismantle his opponent's predictable build (Polt vs Classic on Overgrowth). What I don't want to see is some 100 APM Protoss taking out games of INnoVation because he so obviously outsmarted him with his delayed oracle into delayed DTs.
Your paranoid statement about Innovation losing to some 100 APM Protoss will not happen even in macro-less LotV. Because LotV should, in theory, reward the player who has fast decision making and very strong multi-task. And yes you still have macro in LotV because you need to constantly move workers around and expand out. It is there it is just less important. But I'll also circle around and ask this -- why not? Is it the worst thing in the world when the Dolphins (sorry American Football) busted out the never-before-seen Wildcat formation against the Patriots and beat them? Is it terrible that Virginia Tech used a exotic defensive formation to beat Ohio State last year? No. Just because you cannot adapt to a situation in a game means you didn't deserve to win the game.
Now your previous statement is comparing two top level pro gamers. This is a problem I've been having lately with TL in regards to macro-less and LotV direction in general. You are comparing two people who are already nearly perfect in the mechanics department. Starcraft should not be a game you are only allowed to play if you've already put in 1000 hours to perfect your mechanics. That is not a viable game for the future. People are trying to perserve this sacred ground that is the pro gamer scene at the cost of the actual longevity of the game. The game needs to be accessible from the very first instance you load it up and play around with it. At the moment it is not. You can only start to worry about practicing and working on your micro and build variance once you've secured enough hours into the game to have at least passable mechanics. The game needs to be fun at all skill levels not just the highest. The game needs to reward players for player versus player interactions not just player versus mechanics interactions. Take any Diamond replay and you could point out 100 mechanical mistakes they made that if they didn't they could have won the game regardless of any micro failings. How many times can you load up a Diamond vs Diamond replay and try and boil something down to a player versus player interaction as the true cause of a loss? Probably less than half.
Not fine of their idea though, what I'll suggest to them is the following proposition :
When you inject, every 25 energy above 50 energy gives you one extra larva. So a 100 energy queen would gives you 5 larvas (and consume all its energy), which is less than one queen that inject every 50 energy (6 larvas) so good player gain something while it's less punishing for lesser player.
On September 11 2015 03:44 Schakal111 wrote: iam disappointed.. plz blizzard team from 1998 come back to future ;/
adding 1 more zero to Pardo's pay rate for working on Brood War will not be enough to buy his interest. SC2 is currently the #4 franchise in the company and being the top designer does not pay well ( in relative terms) which is why its gone from Pardo to Browder to Kim.
On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote: Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money.
As a random player I'm pre-ordering two copies of LOTV because Blizzard is willing to revert the macro mechanics
Such a good patch . Chrono Boost still sounds a bit awkward though, they should just make it so the last X buildings you chrono will be chrono boosted -- which Nexus does the boosing isn't very important and if a Nexus dies it should be up to the Protoss to see what got un-chronoed and fix it if they want. Queuing larva injects should have some sort of limit I think, being able to queue 8 injects off a full energy Queen just sounds wrong.
On September 11 2015 04:31 Vanadiel wrote: Inject is back. <3
Not fine of their idea though, what I'll suggest to them is the following proposition :
When you inject, every 25 energy above 50 energy gives you one extra larva. So a 100 energy queen would gives you 5 larvas (and consume all its energy), which is less than one queen that inject every 50 energy (6 larvas) so good player gain something while it's less punishing for lesser player.
I think they would have an issue with variable energy for spells in Starcraft. They usually try to make it as predictable as possible without any variations and having something possibly cast for a variable amount may cause some unwanted interactions.
While I personally have no strong opinion one way or the other, do people prefer the SC2 (not WoL) macro mechanics compared to how it was in BW?? I think it's okay to have macro mechanics in the game, but they do not need to be as influential as they are in HotS. Right now (HotS), the macro mechanics are pretty big game-changers. I think it'd be interesting to see how pros would prioritize them if they were only a tiny boost.
I don't mind the larva change, and I think it's alright to have a lot of mechanics in the game, but make them so that they do not have a huge impact. Perhaps there will be some pros who are able to skip out on doing the macro mechanics perfectly, simply because their decision making is better, but the top player will probably have both mastered.
On September 11 2015 04:31 Vanadiel wrote: Inject is back. <3
Not fine of their idea though, what I'll suggest to them is the following proposition :
When you inject, every 25 energy above 50 energy gives you one extra larva. So a 100 energy queen would gives you 5 larvas (and consume all its energy), which is less than one queen that inject every 50 energy (6 larvas) so good player gain something while it's less punishing for lesser player.
Although I like the idea, it seems a little too wordy and complicated. I would suggest something I saw on the reddit thread:
One idea to reward perfect injects: Maybe make it so that for every stacked inject you get one less larva than usual. So if you suddenly bank 50 energy and inject twice you get 4 larva from the first one but only 3 from the second one. That way it would be an acceptable mistake to make but you would get some reward for doing it perfectly.
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
We should rename the genre to RTM real time mechanical game
I have zero interest in people with great strategic thinking but no mechanics to back it up. I'm very happy with SC2 being a mechanically demanding game. If you disagree with that point of view that's absolutely fine, that's just a personal opinion, nothing to get upset about.
The problem, outside of making the game almost impossible to get into, is that it rewards only one style of play. Outside of some lucky un scouted timing attacks and cheese the mechanically superior player will just outright win all the time. Lets take the below radar chart. The person (since I was lazy aka "Series 1") will will a disproportionate amount of times compared to the other two players simply because he is superior at one facet of the game. The game should strive to reward all aptitudes not just simply muscle memory.
Why would it reward only one style of play ? A mechanically sound player can still choose to go defensive (Rain vs Maru) or craft the perfect all-in to dismantle his opponent's predictable build (Polt vs Classic on Overgrowth). What I don't want to see is some 100 APM Protoss taking out games of INnoVation because he so obviously outsmarted him with his delayed oracle into delayed DTs.
Starcraft should not be a game you are only allowed to play if you've already put in 1000 hours to perfect your mechanics. That is not a viable game for the future.
As long as you don't tone down the mechanics to the point we're playing tic-tac-toe, you'll always needs those countless hours to be able to play competitively. And currently, you don't need 1000 hours to play and have fun. I remember having awesome times when I was playing in silver with zero hotkeys and 20 APM. People just can't deal with the fact they can't invest enough time in the game to learn it properly and think everyone is going to get diamond overnight. Otherwise, you don't need to know how to inject to have fun.
On September 11 2015 04:31 Vanadiel wrote: Inject is back. <3
Not fine of their idea though, what I'll suggest to them is the following proposition :
When you inject, every 25 energy above 50 energy gives you one extra larva. So a 100 energy queen would gives you 5 larvas (and consume all its energy), which is less than one queen that inject every 50 energy (6 larvas) so good player gain something while it's less punishing for lesser player.
How do you control that? I have a 50energy queen, but I don't want to buy 1 larva for 25energy, fuck me? It's essentially a noob-trap and a punishment more than a help to anybody. You don't want to buy 2more larva 33seconds from now for a transfuse or 2 creep tumors.
On September 11 2015 04:35 ZAiNs wrote: Such a good patch . Chrono Boost still sounds a bit awkward though, they should just make it so the last X buildings you chrono will be chrono boosted -- which Nexus does the boosing isn't very important and if a Nexus dies it should be up to the Protoss to see what got un-chronoed and fix it if they want. Queuing larva injects should have some sort of limit I think, being able to queue 8 injects off a full energy Queen just sounds wrong.
I think HotS Chronoboost is just a hundred times better. Just make it less strong so that missing them is more forgiving.
i don't care a single bit about mechanical difficulty, auto vs. manual injects, etc, i'm just disappointed they are adding macro mechanics back at full strength because the game was at a much better (i.e. slower) pace when they were gone.
On September 11 2015 04:39 -NegativeZero- wrote: i don't care a single bit about mechanical difficulty, auto vs. manual injects, etc, i'm just disappointed they are adding macro mechanics back at full strength because the game was at a much better (i.e. slower) pace when they were gone.
Yeah I definitely agree toned down versions would suit LotV pace so much better.
On September 11 2015 04:35 ZAiNs wrote: Such a good patch . Chrono Boost still sounds a bit awkward though, they should just make it so the last X buildings you chrono will be chrono boosted -- which Nexus does the boosing isn't very important and if a Nexus dies it should be up to the Protoss to see what got un-chronoed and fix it if they want. Queuing larva injects should have some sort of limit I think, being able to queue 8 injects off a full energy Queen just sounds wrong.
I think HotS Chronoboost is just a hundred times better. Just make it less strong so that missing them is more forgiving.
They could do to Chrono what they did to Inject, allowing them to queue up so it's less unforgiving but still switch back to the HotS version.
On September 11 2015 04:35 ZAiNs wrote: Such a good patch . Chrono Boost still sounds a bit awkward though, they should just make it so the last X buildings you chrono will be chrono boosted -- which Nexus does the boosing isn't very important and if a Nexus dies it should be up to the Protoss to see what got un-chronoed and fix it if they want. Queuing larva injects should have some sort of limit I think, being able to queue 8 injects off a full energy Queen just sounds wrong.
I think HotS Chronoboost is just a hundred times better. Just make it less strong so that missing them is more forgiving.
I think HotS Chronoboost is just a hundred times better. Just make it less strong so that missing them is more forgiving.
Making it last less time would allow you to catch up more easily. The mechanic overall was 10x better than LOTV and 11x better than this proposed change
On September 11 2015 04:35 ZAiNs wrote: Such a good patch . Chrono Boost still sounds a bit awkward though, they should just make it so the last X buildings you chrono will be chrono boosted -- which Nexus does the boosing isn't very important and if a Nexus dies it should be up to the Protoss to see what got un-chronoed and fix it if they want. Queuing larva injects should have some sort of limit I think, being able to queue 8 injects off a full energy Queen just sounds wrong.
I think HotS Chronoboost is just a hundred times better. Just make it less strong so that missing them is more forgiving.
They could do to Chrono what they did to Inject, allowing them to queue up so it's less unforgiving but still switch back to the HotS version.
Would that idea just increase time by buffering them early? If it increased efficiency then you could just stack 10 chronos and get a tech out in notime.
On September 11 2015 04:35 ZAiNs wrote: Such a good patch . Chrono Boost still sounds a bit awkward though, they should just make it so the last X buildings you chrono will be chrono boosted -- which Nexus does the boosing isn't very important and if a Nexus dies it should be up to the Protoss to see what got un-chronoed and fix it if they want. Queuing larva injects should have some sort of limit I think, being able to queue 8 injects off a full energy Queen just sounds wrong.
I think HotS Chronoboost is just a hundred times better. Just make it less strong so that missing them is more forgiving.
They could do to Chrono what they did to Inject, allowing them to queue up so it's less unforgiving but still switch back to the HotS version.
Would that idea just increase time by buffering them early? If it increased efficiency then you could just stack 10 chronos and get a tech out in notime.
I see so many people misunderstanding the zerg inject change, you CANNOT just inject one hatchery 5 times, after which it will spawn 20 larva. You can inject it three times, which will QUEUE three injects at that hatchery, meaning that a new inject cycle will start right after an old one has finished. So you will not gain anything from committing additional queens to injecting a hatchery, you will only gain something if you consistently miss inject with a single queen on a hatchery, and consequently have energy built up to queue multiple injects.
On September 11 2015 04:45 Tenks wrote: Just spit balling but what about the idea of stacking CB? So like 1 stack = 10%, 2 = 15%, 3 = 17%, 4 = 20% or something like that?
That wouldn't be good, even if you scout the building it will be hard to determine how many stacks are on it and when to expect the tech and it would give Protoss even more options and weird timings. Let's not even go there. =)
On September 11 2015 04:45 Tenks wrote: Just spit balling but what about the idea of stacking CB? So like 1 stack = 10%, 2 = 15%, 3 = 17%, 4 = 20% or something like that?
That wouldn't be good, even if you scout the building it will be hard to determine how many stacks are on it and when to expect the tech and it would give Protoss even more options and weird timings. Let's not even go there. =)
But it would be overall more inefficient this way. Since 1 stack of CB is only 50% less efficient than 4 stacks. I don't think it would ever be beneficial outside of late game to actually stack CB. It would just be a crutch for people who forget. Like if you're really, really trying to hit the earliest possible Colossus Lance timing it would probably be better to CB your Nexus for probes to get the eco to get the buildings out faster than it would be to pool energy on 2 nexues to CB the Bay and Facility.
On September 11 2015 04:35 ZAiNs wrote: Such a good patch . Chrono Boost still sounds a bit awkward though, they should just make it so the last X buildings you chrono will be chrono boosted -- which Nexus does the boosing isn't very important and if a Nexus dies it should be up to the Protoss to see what got un-chronoed and fix it if they want. Queuing larva injects should have some sort of limit I think, being able to queue 8 injects off a full energy Queen just sounds wrong.
I think HotS Chronoboost is just a hundred times better. Just make it less strong so that missing them is more forgiving.
They could do to Chrono what they did to Inject, allowing them to queue up so it's less unforgiving but still switch back to the HotS version.
Would that idea just increase time by buffering them early? If it increased efficiency then you could just stack 10 chronos and get a tech out in notime.
No increased efficiency, just like the change to larva inject doesn't increase efficiency.
i like no over lapping MULEs to nerf Terran mineral income late game
because the team was split 50-50 on the removal of macro mechanics i'm sure the community is split as well. its highly unlikely the community was 95-5 in favour of 1 or the other. so no matter what path DK takes they'll always be a vocal minority of people screaming from the rooftops that DK just destroyed the game.
On September 11 2015 04:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i like no over lapping MULEs to nerf Terran income late game
Mhh, the way they describe it, it sounds like you could still have 2 mules per patch, 16 mules cap does not really adress the problem. Well, lets see what they make of it.
On September 11 2015 04:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i like no over lapping MULEs to nerf Terran income late game
Yea I actually really like that, it's kind of my only beef with MULES in general, I'd rather MULEs be in the game and allow bio to be just as viable as mech then not have MULEs to appease the macro mechanic haters.
I will say I agree with them where I enjoyed the decision making aspect of the OC and where to spend energy. Yesterday I opened Cloak Banshee and generally even if I do almost nothing with the Banshee I can get value by forcing turrets and scans. But I realized that isn't the case. I had to kill stuff or else I'm not really costing my opponent anything since scans are mostly free and at worst a 100 mineral opportunity cost now. But I don't think immediately running back to MULE is the answer. A cool aspect of the no-MULE patch was it wasn't always obvious when to make your OC. Because it didn't give a ton of value. So there could be builds which emerged where you delay your OC for a very, very long time. Long enough for Cloak Banshees to arrive at your door if you didn't scout it. The decision making should come down to "Should I upgrade this CC to an OC?" instead of "This is a CC and it needs to be an OC ASAP" like it is right now.
On September 11 2015 04:55 Charoisaur wrote: wow, this gives my hope for LotV back. finally a good community update that shows that they listen.
Listen to whom though? The community is incredibly divided on almost all aspects of LotV, they'll always be angering someone no matter what they do.
Yep. And the divide is fairly simply: go back to broodwar vs. blaze new trails.
Hopefully this mean scan goes back to 50 energy though.
IDEA FOR MULE What if they retained the range on the OC, but instead of it affecting calldown radius, it had a MULE tolerance. Like, each OC could tolerate [x] amount of active MULEs. So, if you really wanted to drop 16 MULEs on a gold base in an extreme late-game scenario, you'd have to lad [y] number of OCs over near it.
Also, very very very disappointed they are still defending marauder design!!!
No wonder SC2 could not reach Broodwar level. I was hoping the macro design changes would be a start but no, Legacy of the void cannot reach Broodwar either. Blizzard is losing their mojo.
Ultimately I hope blizzard settles on one of the following designs: 1) Injects are automated with 2-3 larva per inject 2) Injects are completely removed 3) the inject mechanic stays like in HotS, but is nerfed to 2-3 larva
The stacking* Inject was so obvious from the beginning, you can do the same with Chrono Boost? Do you realize this?
I'm more for HotS macro mechanics if they make Chrono Boost&Inject stack* along with weakening all of them together. To either the strength of 2 larvae of 3 larvae. Mule's strength gets closer to supply drop and that of scan and there's more decision to be made, Chrono gets easier and was always a good macro mechanic from the start.
I think it's incredibly important to be consistent with your design goals. Go with either this method or go that of the *NEW* Chrono Boost. Inject can be made the same, do you realize this? Queen can channel Inject untill given a new order. Mule cannot be changed to be the same way, but Mule was never THAT hard to begin with.
Chrono Target: Should act as if there's a never ending cooldown untill you've ordered all of your Nexus in your control group to a target. This is super hard to explain, but basically when you change a Chrono target from the Nexus, it should wait in line in queue untill you've been through all of your Nexi. Another way to say it is, the one Nexus that I forgot about, should change target
Does this new stackable inject mean that you can almost surely inject perfectly with 2 Queens? It's actually not a very bad idea, but a strange one nonetheless. Making extra Queens is an investment, just as extra Hatches are in the current auto-inject system. The difference here is that you can still be almost perfect if you hit your injects well without having to invest into extra Queens. This would allow good players to truly shine with their injects, while lesser players could go for more Queens instead. Not all that bad in theory, but I fear it would feel a little complicated to some. Also, since the best possible method would still be hitting your injects sharply, I think few players would actually use this possibility.
On September 11 2015 05:06 Big J wrote: Ultimately I hope blizzard settles on one of the following designs: 1) Injects are automated with 2-3 larva per inject 2) Injects are completely removed 3) the inject mechanic stays like in HotS, but is nerfed to 2-3 larva
I hope they keep similar mechanics to the ones we have in HotS, but toned down quite a bit so that 1) missing them is less unforgiving 2) they match the pace of the game (and especially the economy) better.
I think the weirdest part about stacking inject is since most Zergs make extra queens for spreading creep those can lay down some tumors then retreat to be extra larva injecters. So now the Zerg who was previously running off 2 bases and a queen is running on the larvae of effectively 3. Not saying it is wrong or broken just possibly something to consider.
On September 11 2015 05:06 Big J wrote: Ultimately I hope blizzard settles on one of the following designs: 1) Injects are automated with 2-3 larva per inject 2) Injects are completely removed 3) the inject mechanic stays like in HotS, but is nerfed to 2-3 larva
I hope they keep similar mechanics to the ones we have in HotS, but toned down quite a bit so that 1) missing them is less unforgiving 2) they match the pace of the game (and especially the economy) better.
Well, the last thing I want is to replace inject with a different form of inject that is mechanically similar, yet I have to learn it anew. But yeah, the toning down has always been a major part of what I liked about the original changes.
As we’ve done multiple times in the past, we definitely know that if a map isn’t completely standard, a majority of players will initially think it’s a bad map. However, this is one of the areas that we would really like to push back because the positive effects of having a more diverse map pool is just too good for the game. We see this in HotS season 3 and even more so in the various tournaments going on in LotV, in terms of how different each map plays.
all I see is coda/cactus/terraform or iron fortress played in every bo3
On September 11 2015 05:13 DERASTAT wrote: Please dont make injekt stackable, i dont wonna have 3 Queens per Hatch
On September 11 2015 05:12 Tenks wrote: I think the weirdest part about stacking inject is since most Zergs make extra queens for spreading creep those can lay down some tumors then retreat to be extra larva injecters. So now the Zerg who was previously running off 2 bases and a queen is running on the larvae of effectively 3. Not saying it is wrong or broken just possibly something to consider.
That is not how it works, read the changes again, you do not stack them, you QUEUE them.
As we’ve done multiple times in the past, we definitely know that if a map isn’t completely standard, a majority of players will initially think it’s a bad map. However, this is one of the areas that we would really like to push back because the positive effects of having a more diverse map pool is just too good for the game. We see this in HotS season 3 and even more so in the various tournaments going on in LotV, in terms of how different each map plays.
all I see is coda/cactus/terraform or iron fortress played in every bo3
yeah, whereas we would get real variety and strategic choices with 7 solid good maps.
On September 11 2015 05:06 Big J wrote: Ultimately I hope blizzard settles on one of the following designs: 1) Injects are automated with 2-3 larva per inject 2) Injects are completely removed 3) the inject mechanic stays like in HotS, but is nerfed to 2-3 larva
I hope they keep similar mechanics to the ones we have in HotS, but toned down quite a bit so that 1) missing them is less unforgiving 2) they match the pace of the game (and especially the economy) better.
Well, the last thing I want is to replace inject with a different form of inject that is mechanically similar, yet I have to learn it anew. But yeah, the toning down has always been a major part of what I liked about the original changes.
Toning down is the only thing I liked, Toning the speed of the game down is crucial now because of the stupid 12 worker change that no one seems to realizes how awful it is for the phases of the game, we usually see the most interesting micro in low economy situations.
I prefer going back to 6 workers with a DH economy but I fear that's too late to get them to push for, I still hope 12 workers will be reverted.
I don't know why injects need to be made more forgiving. Zergs aren't the ones wallowing in bronze. The punishment for mismacro on the Protoss/Terran side is having to build more production structures to catch up. It should be similar for zerg.
On September 11 2015 05:38 KeksX wrote: Already going back to HotS mechanics? Before we know it minerals get buffed again, Swarm Host reverted back to siege unit and then whoops..
This is the last expansion Blizzard, it's THE time to try out stuff... Are we already back to the half-assing phase that HotS had before it's release?
I think they realized that that WAS the time to try out stuff. Balancing the game and making it suitable for competitive play isn't going to happen like that and the release date they're going to reveal is going to have them bound to it. So I think they're going to stay very safe. There is no denying those changes should have been tried at the beginning of the beta though.
On September 11 2015 04:31 Vanadiel wrote: Inject is back. <3
Not fine of their idea though, what I'll suggest to them is the following proposition :
When you inject, every 25 energy above 50 energy gives you one extra larva. So a 100 energy queen would gives you 5 larvas (and consume all its energy), which is less than one queen that inject every 50 energy (6 larvas) so good player gain something while it's less punishing for lesser player.
How do you control that? I have a 50energy queen, but I don't want to buy 1 larva for 25energy, fuck me? It's essentially a noob-trap and a punishment more than a help to anybody. You don't want to buy 2more larva 33seconds from now for a transfuse or 2 creep tumors.
I am not sure you understood me well, if so I apologize for my poor writing. If you have a queen with 50 energy, you inject normally and you get the usual amount of larvas (whatever the number of larvas they decide). But the idea is that if you miss inject for a while and that you queen has 75 energy, when you inject you'll get one normal inject+1 extra larva at the additional cost of 25 energy, so the queen's energy goes back to 0.
Basically it's just a way to makes missing injects cycle less punishing.
On September 11 2015 05:38 KeksX wrote: Already going back to HotS mechanics? Before we know it minerals get buffed again, Swarm Host reverted back to siege unit and then whoops..
This is the last expansion Blizzard, it's THE time to try out stuff... Are we already back to the half-assing phase that HotS had before it's release?
I think they realized that that WAS the time to try out stuff. Balancing the game and making it suitable for competitive play isn't going to happen like that and the release date they're going to reveal is going to have them bound to it. So I think they're going to stay very safe. There is no denying those changes should have been tried at the beginning of the beta though.
Thats what I'm fearing as well and I think it's the wrong approach. Design is more important than balance atm, especially with HotS being the preferred game for at least a couple of months more.
I personally think LotV is not different enough from HotS at this stage, especially if they revert back the macro mechanics. It's more fun, definitely, but the higher the level of play the closer it is to HotS.
On September 11 2015 05:06 Big J wrote: Ultimately I hope blizzard settles on one of the following designs: 1) Injects are automated with 2-3 larva per inject 2) Injects are completely removed 3) the inject mechanic stays like in HotS, but is nerfed to 2-3 larva
I hope they keep similar mechanics to the ones we have in HotS, but toned down quite a bit so that 1) missing them is less unforgiving 2) they match the pace of the game (and especially the economy) better.
Well, the last thing I want is to replace inject with a different form of inject that is mechanically similar, yet I have to learn it anew. But yeah, the toning down has always been a major part of what I liked about the original changes.
Toning down is the only thing I liked, Toning the speed of the game down is crucial now because of the stupid 12 worker change that no one seems to realizes how awful it is for the phases of the game, we usually see the most interesting micro in low economy situations.
I prefer going back to 6 workers with a DH economy but I fear that's too late to get them to push for, I still hope 12 workers will be reverted.
I very firmly believe that all the 12 worker start does is it cuts out the first X seconds of the game and very slightly adjusts early game timings. It does not change the economy in the big picture, and has negligible effect on the mid and even the early game. It does obviously remove some strategies such as 6 Pool and proxy Gate, etc, but other than that, it does not speed up the game and does not suddenly change low-econ situations into high-econ ones or vice versa. What does change it is the new half mineral patches, which I highly dislike, by the way.
On September 11 2015 04:31 Vanadiel wrote: Inject is back. <3
Not fine of their idea though, what I'll suggest to them is the following proposition :
When you inject, every 25 energy above 50 energy gives you one extra larva. So a 100 energy queen would gives you 5 larvas (and consume all its energy), which is less than one queen that inject every 50 energy (6 larvas) so good player gain something while it's less punishing for lesser player.
How do you control that? I have a 50energy queen, but I don't want to buy 1 larva for 25energy, fuck me? It's essentially a noob-trap and a punishment more than a help to anybody. You don't want to buy 2more larva 33seconds from now for a transfuse or 2 creep tumors.
I am not sure you understood me well, if so I apologize for my poor writing. If you have a queen with 50 energy, you inject normally and you get the usual amount of larvas (whatever the number of larvas they decide). But the idea is that if you miss inject for a while and that you queen has 75 energy, when you inject you'll get one normal inject+1 extra larva at the additional cost of 25 energy, so the queen's energy goes back to 0.
Basically it's just a way to makes missing injects cycle less punishing.
I think I understood you. But do you mean like, a secondary inject-button, so you can choose between normal injects and your injects? Regardless, I think it is a noob-trap. Noone should actually use it because the other two abilities are just plainly better than 1larva for 25energy. It only makes bad players spend their energy-resource badly.
On September 11 2015 05:06 Big J wrote: Ultimately I hope blizzard settles on one of the following designs: 1) Injects are automated with 2-3 larva per inject 2) Injects are completely removed 3) the inject mechanic stays like in HotS, but is nerfed to 2-3 larva
I hope they keep similar mechanics to the ones we have in HotS, but toned down quite a bit so that 1) missing them is less unforgiving 2) they match the pace of the game (and especially the economy) better.
Well, the last thing I want is to replace inject with a different form of inject that is mechanically similar, yet I have to learn it anew. But yeah, the toning down has always been a major part of what I liked about the original changes.
Toning down is the only thing I liked, Toning the speed of the game down is crucial now because of the stupid 12 worker change that no one seems to realizes how awful it is for the phases of the game, we usually see the most interesting micro in low economy situations.
I prefer going back to 6 workers with a DH economy but I fear that's too late to get them to push for, I still hope 12 workers will be reverted.
I very firmly believe that all the 12 worker start does is it cuts out the first X seconds of the game and very slightly adjusts early game timings. It does not change the economy in the big picture, and has negligible effect on the mid and even the early game. It does obviously remove some strategies such as 6 Pool and proxy Gate, etc, but other than that, it does not speed up the game and does not suddenly change low-econ situations into high-econ ones or vice versa. What does change it is the new half mineral patches, which I highly dislike, by the way.
I've said a concept before in an old thread. The concept I was saying was "smooth build orders" my definition for a smooth build order is a build where you make production facilities and workers concurrently without cutting one for the other, this is what has been the economic standard in Hots. A smooth build order for zerg in lotv has 3-4 more workers than a SBO in Hots whilst maintaining the same infrastructure that's roughly 122 Minerals per minute (Hots minute) extra to be spent, it's pretty apparent that will accelerate the game.
On September 11 2015 05:06 Big J wrote: Ultimately I hope blizzard settles on one of the following designs: 1) Injects are automated with 2-3 larva per inject 2) Injects are completely removed 3) the inject mechanic stays like in HotS, but is nerfed to 2-3 larva
I hope they keep similar mechanics to the ones we have in HotS, but toned down quite a bit so that 1) missing them is less unforgiving 2) they match the pace of the game (and especially the economy) better.
Well, the last thing I want is to replace inject with a different form of inject that is mechanically similar, yet I have to learn it anew. But yeah, the toning down has always been a major part of what I liked about the original changes.
Toning down is the only thing I liked, Toning the speed of the game down is crucial now because of the stupid 12 worker change that no one seems to realizes how awful it is for the phases of the game, we usually see the most interesting micro in low economy situations.
I prefer going back to 6 workers with a DH economy but I fear that's too late to get them to push for, I still hope 12 workers will be reverted.
I very firmly believe that all the 12 worker start does is it cuts out the first X seconds of the game and very slightly adjusts early game timings. It does not change the economy in the big picture, and has negligible effect on the mid and even the early game. It does obviously remove some strategies such as 6 Pool and proxy Gate, etc, but other than that, it does not speed up the game and does not suddenly change low-econ situations into high-econ ones or vice versa. What does change it is the new half mineral patches, which I highly dislike, by the way.
I've said a concept before in an old thread. The concept I was saying was "smooth build orders" my definition for a smooth build order is a build where you make production facilities and workers concurrently without cutting one for the other, this is what has been the economic standard in Hots. A smooth build order for zerg in lotv has 3-4 more workers than a SBO in Hots whilst maintaining the same infrastructure that's roughly 122 Minerals per minute (Hots minute) extra to be spent, it's pretty apparent that will accelerate the game.
I can't confirm nor refute this since I don't play Zerg, but if it indeed is the case, then I see your point.
On September 11 2015 04:31 Vanadiel wrote: Inject is back. <3
Not fine of their idea though, what I'll suggest to them is the following proposition :
When you inject, every 25 energy above 50 energy gives you one extra larva. So a 100 energy queen would gives you 5 larvas (and consume all its energy), which is less than one queen that inject every 50 energy (6 larvas) so good player gain something while it's less punishing for lesser player.
How do you control that? I have a 50energy queen, but I don't want to buy 1 larva for 25energy, fuck me? It's essentially a noob-trap and a punishment more than a help to anybody. You don't want to buy 2more larva 33seconds from now for a transfuse or 2 creep tumors.
I am not sure you understood me well, if so I apologize for my poor writing. If you have a queen with 50 energy, you inject normally and you get the usual amount of larvas (whatever the number of larvas they decide). But the idea is that if you miss inject for a while and that you queen has 75 energy, when you inject you'll get one normal inject+1 extra larva at the additional cost of 25 energy, so the queen's energy goes back to 0.
Basically it's just a way to makes missing injects cycle less punishing.
I think I understood you. But do you mean like, a secondary inject-button, so you can choose between normal injects and your injects? Regardless, I think it is a noob-trap. Noone should actually use it because the other two abilities are just plainly better than 1larva for 25energy. It only makes bad players spend their energy-resource badly.
No just the normal inject, which behaves differently if your queen have 50 energy (normal inject, 3 larvas) or 75 and more (so the first 50 energy is consume for the normal inject = 3 larvas + 1 extra larvas per 25 energy you have).
On September 11 2015 05:38 KeksX wrote: Already going back to HotS mechanics? Before we know it minerals get buffed again, Swarm Host reverted back to siege unit and then whoops..
This is the last expansion Blizzard, it's THE time to try out stuff... Are we already back to the half-assing phase that HotS had before it's release?
I think they realized that that WAS the time to try out stuff. Balancing the game and making it suitable for competitive play isn't going to happen like that and the release date they're going to reveal is going to have them bound to it. So I think they're going to stay very safe. There is no denying those changes should have been tried at the beginning of the beta though.
Thats what I'm fearing as well and I think it's the wrong approach. Design is more important than balance atm, especially with HotS being the preferred game for at least a couple of months more.
I personally think LotV is not different enough from HotS at this stage, especially if they revert back the macro mechanics. It's more fun, definitely, but the higher the level of play the closer it is to HotS.
This is precisely the problem, design IS more important than balance. Which is why it is a completely retarded idea that they are bringing back mechanics they admit are bad design in their post...
I really hate that people support these macro mechanics, especially larvae. Macro is too important in SC2, even though the interface was worse in BW, BW had design that supported various styles much better, and BW did not have poorly designed mechanics like Larvae that are included "because people practiced them"...
People practiced with small control groups for years too.. but that would not be a good idea to bring back, because it is poor design!
It should be easy to get your units to do what you want it to, the only obstacle should be using them the right way against your opponent. But apparently some of the player base thinks doing repetitive actions should for some reason = skill...
How does making it more inconvenient for yourself to get ur army to work the way you want it to, make a better game? That is putting skill with a challenge against YOURSELF rather than a challenge against the OPPONENT. This is supposed to be a competitive multiplayer game... the challenges to overcome your own deficiencies belong in single player games/campaign mode... The challenges against your OPPONENT belong in multiplayer, not the challenges against yourself... The design should support proving which player can defeat the other, not which one can not overcome themselves...
Good lord, Blizzard, do NOT go back on auto-injects. They were the best crazy idea you ever had.
I'm getting the sense from the Pylon PO changes that it might be a good time to test the Dark Pylon / Monolith again. Make PO castable on both, but once you reach the late game and you can build some Monoliths, or upgrade some Pylons into them if that's the better tech route idea, they'll be beefier and able to withstand the onslaught of upgraded units much better. Plus, it would be exciting to have a pseudo Shield Battery back in the game again.
On September 11 2015 04:31 Vanadiel wrote: Inject is back. <3
Not fine of their idea though, what I'll suggest to them is the following proposition :
When you inject, every 25 energy above 50 energy gives you one extra larva. So a 100 energy queen would gives you 5 larvas (and consume all its energy), which is less than one queen that inject every 50 energy (6 larvas) so good player gain something while it's less punishing for lesser player.
How do you control that? I have a 50energy queen, but I don't want to buy 1 larva for 25energy, fuck me? It's essentially a noob-trap and a punishment more than a help to anybody. You don't want to buy 2more larva 33seconds from now for a transfuse or 2 creep tumors.
I am not sure you understood me well, if so I apologize for my poor writing. If you have a queen with 50 energy, you inject normally and you get the usual amount of larvas (whatever the number of larvas they decide). But the idea is that if you miss inject for a while and that you queen has 75 energy, when you inject you'll get one normal inject+1 extra larva at the additional cost of 25 energy, so the queen's energy goes back to 0.
Basically it's just a way to makes missing injects cycle less punishing.
I think I understood you. But do you mean like, a secondary inject-button, so you can choose between normal injects and your injects? Regardless, I think it is a noob-trap. Noone should actually use it because the other two abilities are just plainly better than 1larva for 25energy. It only makes bad players spend their energy-resource badly.
No just the normal inject, which behaves differently if your queen have 50 energy (normal inject, 3 larvas) or 75 and more (so the first 50 energy is consume for the normal inject = 3 larvas + 1 extra larvas per 25 energy you have).
But that is the opposite of making it less punishing to miss inject circles. Instead of having extra energy on your queen for creep and transfuses you get an almost neglectible amount of extra larva after your inject finishes.
removed macro mechanics in LotV was the best idea and going back to HotS macro mechanics is the worst idea now...
If HotS mechanic keeps in LotV then I am going to change to P or T. I am tired to spent 95% of the time with creep spreads, injects, injects, injects, creep spreads, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............ in every damn game. I want a RTS with Army focused play (what T and P offers largely) and not an economy focused play (Zerg).
On September 11 2015 05:06 Big J wrote: Ultimately I hope blizzard settles on one of the following designs: 1) Injects are automated with 2-3 larva per inject 2) Injects are completely removed 3) the inject mechanic stays like in HotS, but is nerfed to 2-3 larva
I hope they keep similar mechanics to the ones we have in HotS, but toned down quite a bit so that 1) missing them is less unforgiving 2) they match the pace of the game (and especially the economy) better.
Well, the last thing I want is to replace inject with a different form of inject that is mechanically similar, yet I have to learn it anew. But yeah, the toning down has always been a major part of what I liked about the original changes.
Toning down is the only thing I liked, Toning the speed of the game down is crucial now because of the stupid 12 worker change that no one seems to realizes how awful it is for the phases of the game, we usually see the most interesting micro in low economy situations.
I prefer going back to 6 workers with a DH economy but I fear that's too late to get them to push for, I still hope 12 workers will be reverted.
I very firmly believe that all the 12 worker start does is it cuts out the first X seconds of the game and very slightly adjusts early game timings. It does not change the economy in the big picture, and has negligible effect on the mid and even the early game. It does obviously remove some strategies such as 6 Pool and proxy Gate, etc, but other than that, it does not speed up the game and does not suddenly change low-econ situations into high-econ ones or vice versa. What does change it is the new half mineral patches, which I highly dislike, by the way.
I've said a concept before in an old thread. The concept I was saying was "smooth build orders" my definition for a smooth build order is a build where you make production facilities and workers concurrently without cutting one for the other, this is what has been the economic standard in Hots. A smooth build order for zerg in lotv has 3-4 more workers than a SBO in Hots whilst maintaining the same infrastructure that's roughly 122 Minerals per minute (Hots minute) extra to be spent, it's pretty apparent that will accelerate the game.
I can't confirm nor refute this since I don't play Zerg, but if it indeed is the case, then I see your point.
It is, I was testing different timings of things with different worker amounts and starting resources amounts I got pretty far with it before I had to go back to education (not got the time to test random things anymore and didn't get enough data that I wanted to make an informed post about it) but I can tell you for certain that it accelerates the economy.
The said it, if gona regret the changes to go back to HotS, just make a patch to HotS, no reason to make an expansion.
Retaining the manual inject gona be a nightmare to zerg players, considering that the game is more fast, and more expansions to defend, practically the zerg player would need to have at least 230 apm, to have a regular control of their units. To newbie players practically autolose, to standard players almost frustrating losing for an units uncontrol or the typical lost for a missed round of injects, gona be more usually than currently is in HotS.
What blizz want to do with this expansion is an unknown, they want the game being more accesible and friendly, or they want to make the game more restrictive to have almost low master level to could play it, who knows.
PD: I had hopes that they would remove the worst mechanic ever created called "inject", and replaced for other method of larva production, but i think not gona happen.
Ugh, if mule spam and larva injects come back I'll have to only play the campaign, just like I did with HOTS. Removing the macro mechanics was the best idea they ever had. It was truly refreshing. I wish they'd just stick with that, spend a few months and rebalance everything accordingly
On September 11 2015 05:53 -Archangel- wrote: For anyone disappointed with Blizzard like me check out Act of Aggression as alternative.
I am unsure how to respond without risking a ban, just want to highlight that you're a lower league player with bad mechanics...
I was Diamond back in WoL. Whatever that means to you.
And you highlight my point perfectly.
Does not change anything about people not happy with what Blizzard is going finding an alternative RTS. I did. Master players are only 10% of SC2 players (or less) so basically you are saying that people like me and below are cool to find alternatives? I am good with that.
Oh my god. I think the macro mechanics are perfect right now. The chrono is especially elegant. This sucks. The only positive is now I can manner mule people again, but I'm going to have to relearn dropping mules on time. Blah.
On September 11 2015 05:53 -Archangel- wrote: For anyone disappointed with Blizzard like me check out Act of Aggression as alternative.
I am unsure how to respond without risking a ban, just want to highlight that you're a lower league player with bad mechanics...
I was Diamond back in WoL. Whatever that means to you.
And you highlight my point perfectly.
That you are an elitist dick to people?
If someone is disappointed in the game then that is their right regardless of their level. DOTA2 is able to be fun and engaging for people of vastly different competencies and it has gone from strength to strength. It is possible for SC2 to achieve the same, not just appeal to those who have the time to grind it out until it does become fun.
On September 11 2015 05:53 -Archangel- wrote: For anyone disappointed with Blizzard like me check out Act of Aggression as alternative.
I would rather guide people towards a game that they might actually enjoy. I heard Age of Empires II is getting a new expansion.
Age of Empires is a much different game to Sc2 than Act of Aggression. You might as well guide them to Civilization lol
I see these games and other games like SupCom2 to be different in spirit and scale than SC2. I used to play a lot of SupCom2 but prefer the smaller scale and more tactical feel of SC2. I may try AoA but it could not replace SC2.
Also I like the SciFi setting of SC2. I have played Warhammer 40K but not Warhammer as generally a SciFi setting is my favourite setting.
@Ovid: Someone being of a lower league doesn't necessarily make their criticism bad. There's people who's at his level who thinks the opposite of him does their opinion rank just as low in your eyes or is theirs ok because you share their opinion? If someone disagrees with your point of view it's a poor choice to blame their rank as the reason.
On September 11 2015 06:30 Firkraag8 wrote: @Ovid: Someone being of a lower league doesn't necessarily make their criticism bad. There's people who's at his level who thinks the opposite of him does their opinion rank just as low in your eyes or is theirs ok because you share their opinion? If someone disagrees with your point of view it's a poor choice to blame their rank as the reason.
Which is what I said - but in a more choice fashion.
Even the people who only play the campaign, or only watch competitive SC2, have valid opinions. For instance why are they interested enough to play or watch but not play ladder?
The larger the community, and the more welcoming people are to others, the better for everyone. And yes I am going to manner mule the sh*t out of my games now
I really don't understand their thinking on the macro mechanics... everything they stated could have been though of beforehand. I feel we will end up with some weird solution (design by comittee) instead of a clear design decision.
How hard is it to strap a "de-chronoboost" ability so you can stop it on the building of your choice. You'll still have to check which building gets de-chronoboosted in case of nexus lost, but otherwise it's consistent.
On September 11 2015 06:18 JeremyAnderson wrote: Oh my god. I think the macro mechanics are perfect right now. The chrono is especially elegant. This sucks. The only positive is now I can manner mule people again, but I'm going to have to relearn dropping mules on time. Blah.
Chrono isn't actually being changed a whole lot. They're mostly just going to give it a slight cooldown so you don't accidentally waste it by targeting multiple Nexii worth of chrono on the same structure.
Frankly, I felt the current MULE was a nice and simple compromise (though I don't feel it was overly broken before).
I also like the new Chronoboost, though a think a few little UI things could have improved it (though I don't feel it was broken before).
Spawn Larva is just the odd man out here, and everyone knows it. Maybe the camp that wanted limited larva per hatch, and having to iterate up with macro hatches was the way to go. I don't know, but automating Zerg's production capability was just bad.
I'm not sure this new iteration is a step in the right direction, but mainly because of Spawn Larva.
I really liked all the macro changes. The PO thing surely needed some attention but generally speakin that was a really good upgrade to the game. Too bad they couldnt test it more out.
Too bad people are not really open minded during this beta. Also wondering why people get so aggressive about changes throughout a beta, since i mean it is a beta.
The automated queen injecting really ruined zerg in lotv for me, it feels empty compared to what's to be expected from zerg, since there's only so much army control you can do. I find a lot of the people who like automatic injects are lower league players who don't play frequently and want an easier game, which is understandable, but why make a game for new people at the expense of the core players. Afterall injecting is pretty much a non-issue for any zergs who have practiced enough, and a lot of people already complain that HotS queen injecting macro isn't exactly hard.
I think they should maybe look at injection cycle times, and maybe even ingame popups saying hatches aren't injected for people who struggle to remember to inject. like a 3/7 hatcheries are not injected.
On September 11 2015 07:24 Hularuns wrote: I think they should maybe look at injection cycle times, and maybe even ingame popups saying hatches aren't injected for people who struggle to remember to inject. like a 3/7 hatcheries are not injected.
Even just a voice saying, "Larva has spawned" or something. That would be so much better than all these changes they're trying.
On September 11 2015 07:45 a_flayer wrote: They should have really toned down the macro mechanics for all races. Start with 1 larva per inject for queens and balance the others around that.
The biggest change in all of this for me was slowing down the burst of units and economy that macro boosters gave and made it feel more BW like and now all that is gone and back is busy work. It is just not fun at all. I had more fun clicking on each hatchery in bw or selecting all larva to build stuff than injecting larva and putting down creep in sc2.
On September 11 2015 03:15 [PkF] Wire wrote: I guess we're going to get something fairly reasonable in the end. It's like watching a thought process that could be done in twenty seconds being painstakingly extended longer and longer.
Fine tuning, I'm waiting for you. And yeah, warpgate change sucks, split energy and warp-in power.
Yeah just painful and hilarious at the same time when you're waiting for the bullshit to get cut.
So, for injects, what if we just reduced the time it takes for the larvae to pop? Lets say, 15 second for larvae to pop.
We keep the energy/second on queens, so there is a buffer between when the inject finishes, and when you need to start a new one? This way, you can manage APM easier (you dont need to inject, spend the larvae so the hatchery produces larvae again, and micro units/other things all in the same instant.) It adds some forgiveness, since you can later inject as soon as the previous finishes, and eventually get back to a 0 energy queen. Super high level players who still hit their injects still get their units earlier than lesser players, but we no longer ban a bronze league from having the larvae to spend his money.
This also still enables macro queens, which would allow you to produce more larvae/base. I like the idea of macro queens, as its a more subtle/less of an investment for more larvae, while still being scout-able.
On September 11 2015 07:24 Hularuns wrote: I think they should maybe look at injection cycle times, and maybe even ingame popups saying hatches aren't injected for people who struggle to remember to inject. like a 3/7 hatcheries are not injected.
Even just a voice saying, "Larva has spawned" or something. That would be so much better than all these changes they're trying.
Oh goody, I can't wait till I have 5 bases and a macro hatch.
On September 11 2015 05:06 Big J wrote: Ultimately I hope blizzard settles on one of the following designs: 1) Injects are automated with 2-3 larva per inject 2) Injects are completely removed 3) the inject mechanic stays like in HotS, but is nerfed to 2-3 larva
nerfed manual MM would be my definitve favorite indeed.
On September 11 2015 07:24 Hularuns wrote: I think they should maybe look at injection cycle times, and maybe even ingame popups saying hatches aren't injected for people who struggle to remember to inject. like a 3/7 hatcheries are not injected.
Even just a voice saying, "Larva has spawned" or something. That would be so much better than all these changes they're trying.
Oh goody, I can't wait till I have 5 bases and a macro hatch.
Well there is time in between warnings for things. Like when you're in a battle you don't hear "your forces are under attack" 300 times in a row. There's some kind of cooldown on the voice.
Or, if you do hear it 5x at once, at least you won't miss it.
Haha DAMN, its funny how when they announced they were removing Macro Mechanics, everrryyyone and their mom was like " OMG BLIZZARD WTF. they've lost their minds im not buying this game.".. now they change them back and everyone is like "OMG Blizzard WTF removing MM was the best thing they ever did! im not buying this game".
lol
I do think they could have found a happy median, have the option to use auto cast or manual.
As someone who was outspoken against removing the three macro abilites, I actually came to agree with the change. Now that I'm pro removal I'm upset again lol.
On September 11 2015 07:05 varsovie wrote: How hard is it to strap a "de-chronoboost" ability so you can stop it on the building of your choice. You'll still have to check which building gets de-chronoboosted in case of nexus lost, but otherwise it's consistent.
This is a really good solution actually. Though Blizzard probably won't like it because it's more clicks.
On September 11 2015 06:48 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I really don't understand their thinking on the macro mechanics... everything they stated could have been though of beforehand. I feel we will end up with some weird solution (design by comittee) instead of a clear design decision.
The only way to get good feedback is to get good players to play the game and to do that they had to patch the game.
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
We should rename the genre to RTM real time mechanical game
I have zero interest in people with great strategic thinking but no mechanics to back it up. I'm very happy with SC2 being a mechanically demanding game. If you disagree with that point of view that's absolutely fine, that's just a personal opinion, nothing to get upset about.
you have to understand though that mechanics is almost exclusively the result of playing a fuckton of starcraft, not much else... it's mostly if not all of it building muscle memory
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
We should rename the genre to RTM real time mechanical game
I have zero interest in people with great strategic thinking but no mechanics to back it up. I'm very happy with SC2 being a mechanically demanding game. If you disagree with that point of view that's absolutely fine, that's just a personal opinion, nothing to get upset about.
you have to understand though that mechanics is almost exclusively the result of playing a fuckton of starcraft, not much else... it's mostly if not all of it building muscle memory
^ this, though I don't know if I agree that this is necessarily bad.
For instance: I play tennis at a competitive level. Technique is important, sure, but the guy who plays more has a huge advantage (assuming similar technique levels). Decision making and strategy are important, but so is execution, and executing in a competitive match is all about muscle memory, and practice.
Where I think eSports can differentiate--beside the numerous obvious ways--is that some of this rote muscle memory is not as necessary. Right now, in SC2, if you're much better than me, it's probably because you've played thousands more games, not because you have superior strategies. Mechanical efficiency--a direct benefit of rote muscle memory, as Fayth accurately observed--reins supreme almost all the way to the pro level of play.
as to larvae: hoenstly its more skill inducing to remember to always inject larvae at all times. What about making it so that if you hit injects your larvae are FASTER. not more numerous?
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
We should rename the genre to RTM real time mechanical game
I have zero interest in people with great strategic thinking but no mechanics to back it up. I'm very happy with SC2 being a mechanically demanding game. If you disagree with that point of view that's absolutely fine, that's just a personal opinion, nothing to get upset about.
you have to understand though that mechanics is almost exclusively the result of playing a fuckton of starcraft, not much else... it's mostly if not all of it building muscle memory
That's why there's leagues though...people with no macro can play against other people with no macro. What's wrong with that?
On September 11 2015 08:30 NyxNax wrote: Haha DAMN, its funny how when they announced they were removing Macro Mechanics, everrryyyone and their mom was like " OMG BLIZZARD WTF. they've lost their minds im not buying this game.".. now they change them back and everyone is like "OMG Blizzard WTF removing MM was the best thing they ever did! im not buying this game".
lol
I do think they could have found a happy median, have the option to use auto cast or manual.
It would be interesting to see who is saying this - is it the same people or two different camps of thought. As Blizz said they were split 50:50 on this and there was definitely a split in the community.
Like BisuDagger above, I was one of the ones who said WTF originally, came round to their way of thinking (after the recent update) and now I am once again thinking WTF. However I have already bought the game, and there is at least one more copy that I will buy.
On September 11 2015 08:32 BisuDagger wrote: As someone who was outspoken against removing the three macro abilites, I actually came to agree with the change. Now that I'm pro removal I'm upset again lol.
This is pretty much where I'm at.
I can't believe I'm saying this after waiting so impatiently for WoL to come out:
I wish the SC2 team had more control over the release date and could push the release back a few months to do more testing/development.
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
We should rename the genre to RTM real time mechanical game
I have zero interest in people with great strategic thinking but no mechanics to back it up. I'm very happy with SC2 being a mechanically demanding game. If you disagree with that point of view that's absolutely fine, that's just a personal opinion, nothing to get upset about.
you have to understand though that mechanics is almost exclusively the result of playing a fuckton of starcraft, not much else... it's mostly if not all of it building muscle memory
That's why there's leagues though...people with no macro can play against other people with no macro. What's wrong with that?
I didn't mention it but it was to point out that it's not more interesting than someone who came up with a better strategy with lesser mechanics
I'm glad they're looking for some kind of middle ground here. I think a generalized nerf on all the macro mechanics to make them less impactful would pretty much hit the spot. I hope they test that as well.
My own thinking on this issue is that Starcraft is by definition a mechanical game, and that macro is a core part of that. Even if macro mechanics were totally removed, this would still be true. The only question is how that mechanical requirement ought to be distributed, what the proper balance of mechanical tasks and value should be to create the best experience for all kinds of users.
The macro mechanics in their essence are very simple ways to translate mechanics into economic benefit--they generally do that in much simpler ways than do Starcraft's other macro tasks (building pylons at the right times, building the right number of production facilities, producing the optimal number of units, etc). The macro mechanics actually simplify macro, since they allow single clicks to have large benefits that would otherwise take far more time/attention/actions to gain--in their own way, they're really "macro shortcuts." Starcraft being a competitive game, though, the presence of these shortcuts is going to tilt the game to some degree towards people who can remember or are capable of performing them; this is just the other side of the coin.
Remove the macro mechanics completely, and bad players like me will suffer because their one-click macro "shortcuts" have been removed--tune them really high, and bad players like me will suffer because their failures to consistently perform these actions are having too large of an effect on the balance between them and their opponent. I don't really like either of these options, and I'm convinced the answer lies in between, in finding the right balance.
Now, I don't really think that there is a single optimal balance here (different people are going to appreciate different ratios, and these will often be based on their own particular strengths and weaknesses), but I do think it's perfectly possible to adjust the strength of the macro mechanics up or down so to optimize it as much as possible. I think that's basically what Blizzard should be doing here, and what they should be focusing on.
I am slightly confused about the wording on the inject version they are working on internally:
"We currently have autocast removed, but it is possible to stack Spawn Larva on a Hatchery. E.g. I can cast Spawn Larva three times on the same Hatchery at the same time, and each one will pop one after another."
I feel this can be interpreted in 2 different ways:
1. casting spawn larvae 3 times on same hatchery will cause 3 sets of larvae to pop at the same time 40 seconds after injecting.
2. casting spawn larvae 3 times on same hatchery will cause 1 set of larvae to pop after 40 seconds, at which point a new 40-second duration will automatically start and spawn another set of larvae after the duration and then automatically start a third and final 40-second duration which will pop the third set of larvae.
so basically: if I use spawn larvae on a hatchery (that is not already spawning larvae) 3 times simoultaniously, will the hatchery be done after 40 seconds or 120 seconds? (assuming I don't stack another set on top of those 3)
fyi: I am a low-level player that is very happy with auto-inject but wouldn't consider it a dealbreaker if they reinstated manual injects that are less punishing than hots injects (something equivalent to chronoboost or mule in harshness). however reinstating hots injects as punishing as they always have been might eventually end up being a dealbreaker.
assuming that you will be able to inject a hatchery even if it is already spawning larvae (which I feel is a reasonable assumption if it is possible to inject 3 times in a row as indicated by the feedback update)
if it is the former (40 seconds to finish all 3): I could probably live with this version. my main concern is not with how difficult (or easy) this would be but rather whether mass queens for each hatchery will become a thing. this version pretty much officially kills the concept of a macro hatchery since the only benefits for extra hatcheries over extra queens are extremely situational (for example, having an extra building in base races, not costing supply, etc.)
if it is the latter (120 seconds to finish all 3): then it only helps an extremely minor amount. it would still be almost as punishing as original hots (because missed larvae injects are not caught up to at any reasonable speed) and it doesn't really do anything different from original hots other than that the injection-timing-window becomes larger the more you fuck up.
regardless of whether its the 40 second version or the 120 second version there are some pros and cons that they share, which I believe is what DK alludes to when he says "design-wise, the current version is arguably better, however players are losing a skill they’ve been practicing for years, which isn't ideal."
the main positive thing about manual inject is that players regain their method of distinguishing skill (although diminished in this regard) and multi-tasking, as well as allowing professional players to keep the benefits of a skillset they have been practicing for years and making zerg return to base with their camera. it also solves the issue of queens instantly injecting the hatch they were built from even if you wanted it to make a creep tumor with the first 25 energy.
as for the negative things, it reintroduces the unneccessary rote zerg mechanic that feels artificial, uninteresting and rigid to execute.
as a sum total: I really don't like reintroducing rote mechanics just for the sake of having rote mechanics and because "people have developed a skillset for it" that like saying we shouldn't build houses because people have perfected the art of digging caves. but if the game is not going to be any other way then fine, Ill tuck my tail between my legs and yield. after barking that it still shouldn't be as punishing as in hots. as for distinguishing players I feel that that can be done many other ways that does not necessitate reintroducing manual injects, same with multitasking, making zerg return to base with camera and the issue of the instantly injecting queen that you might want to have make an immediate creep tumor. on the subject of pros having practiced the skill for a long time: allowing pros to keep a niche skill they have been practicing for years, just because that niche was an extremely powerful (but also flawed) mechanic seems very much like arguing that people have learned to eat soup with a fork and giving them a spoon would hurt their feelings, and therefore we all should eat soup with forks to make those people feel like they haven't wasted their time learning the art of the fork. in this analogy the stackable inject would be to give everyone a spork.
^Agreed. Every time I figure out my builds the entire game is changed.
The macro revert for Zerg... don't forget to increase the larvae back up to 4. You probably want to add diminishing returns for the inject since stacking queens will become a big thing otherwise.
On September 11 2015 09:23 Varest wrote: I really want to keep auto-inject.
Yeah I like the auto inject. I'm still so busy spreading creep and scouting / doing all the little things Zerg needs, my APM is still taxed and it's around 190 right now. You look at leagues platinum and below - i.e. the majority of players, and they all play terran and protoss. They can't play zerg it's too many clicks. I don't see why new players need to be excluded from the game. How does that help anyone who plays starcraft? How is that good for the community? And then we have Protoss, the easiest race macro-wise and only race which keeps the autocast. ... Why?
As long as they give Zerg the missing larvae back I am alright anyway.
On September 11 2015 03:29 Spyridon wrote: Add me to the disappointed list.
Still BS that they claim their going to "handle the late game mule issue" and their fix for not stacking on minerals isn't going to make all that much of a difference. The problem is the fact that players still can be REWARDED for FORGETTING to drop mules... Which makes their whole logic as bringing back mules a silly argument... "Not really making macro that much easier"... of course not! Because mules took very little work to begin with relative to other races, and got the most reward for completely forgetting about their mechanics..
Zerg changes are equally retarded... they ADMIT the new version is better design. So why bring back a badly designed mechanic??? If players need a "skill" to master why not make a skill that contributes to the game strategically??? But no... lets bring back a mechanic that was relatively unbalanced since the beginning, and is admittedly badly designed...
Risk vs reward is still skewed, not to mention the obvious exploits...
Makes no damn sense...
I never understood why mules don't have a cool down period (per orbital), make it so that you have to pay attention when to mule like a Zerg has to do with his injects (well, not anymore I guess lol). The spamming is the problem.
I liked how forcing lifts on orbitals could interrupt mule time. Instead of saving up mass mules Terran would land with 1 Mule. That's gone now, but... as a Zerg I liked the incentive for aggression.
Are we chasing the best design for each of these mechanics or is taking away a skill that players have been practicing for years better for the game in the long-term?
Why is this even a question asked. Why WOULDN'T you go for the best design of the game? There is no doubt that better design is better for the game in the long term as people begin to have more fun and less frustration with BETTER designed mechanics rather than maintaining the current balance of power.
On another point, the removal of macro-mechanics provided a glimpse into a SLOWED DOWN game of starcraft, enabling people room for more strategic decisions and a better experience for lower leagues.
The main problem with the economy in LOTV before macro-mechanic changes is that the hyper-developmental economy is extremely hard to manage for a lot of people, and removing macro-mechanics is a good way to slow down the game without affecting the unit handling.
On September 11 2015 08:32 BisuDagger wrote: As someone who was outspoken against removing the three macro abilites, I actually came to agree with the change. Now that I'm pro removal I'm upset again lol.
i was never strongly for or against it. i think this is where a really smart, visionary type game designer is needed. is DK that guy?
It'd be nice to see protoss have some stacking chrono boost ability with diminishing returns, instead of an autocast ability. If we're moving away from autocast for Z / T. I don't see the same argument: "It sucks seeing players lose a skill they're practiced for years" applies to larvae inject but does not apply to chrono boost.
On September 11 2015 09:23 Varest wrote: I really want to keep auto-inject.
Yeah I like the auto inject. I'm still so busy spreading creep and scouting / doing all the little things Zerg needs, my APM is still taxed and it's around 190 right now. You look at leagues platinum and below - i.e. the majority of players, and they all play terran and protoss. They can't play zerg it's too many clicks. I don't see why new players need to be excluded from the game. How does that help anyone who plays starcraft? How is that good for the community? And then we have Protoss, the easiest race macro-wise and only race which keeps the autocast. ... Why?
As long as they give Zerg the missing larvae back I am alright anyway.
new players aren't excluded from the game, they play vs players of similar skill level so they don't have to do as many clicks as high level players. most bronze players probably don't use injects anyway.
On September 11 2015 09:23 Varest wrote: I really want to keep auto-inject.
Yeah I like the auto inject. I'm still so busy spreading creep and scouting / doing all the little things Zerg needs, my APM is still taxed and it's around 190 right now. You look at leagues platinum and below - i.e. the majority of players, and they all play terran and protoss. They can't play zerg it's too many clicks. I don't see why new players need to be excluded from the game. How does that help anyone who plays starcraft? How is that good for the community? And then we have Protoss, the easiest race macro-wise and only race which keeps the autocast. ... Why?
As long as they give Zerg the missing larvae back I am alright anyway.
new players aren't excluded from the game, they play vs players of similar skill level so they don't have to do as many clicks as high level players. most bronze players probably don't use injects anyway.
Yeah, I don't know why everyone complains that you need to spend 100 hours drilling mechanics and builds to rank up. When I was in bronze, I was perfectly satisfied with only improving my play in fun ways and not drilling things. Sure, I improved slowly, but some people just have far too high expectations. Think of Malcolm Gladwell's 1000 hour rule; 1000 hours of intense, focused practice (this means macro drills) could get you to expert level on a bunch of things. People shouldn't expect to improve so quickly just by playing; you can't do that in very many activities.
I like the spammable injects better than auto injects.
There is still potential to distract the zerg with aggressive play this way, but they can still 'catch up' later. Seems legit.
Sure people can make an extra queen, inject immediately and then use that queen for creep, creating an inject 'buffer', but the potential for slip ups still remain.
Mules are stupid. Really stupid. They always have been, they always will be. 2 base terran has always been more powerful than everyone else, which is why balancing vs terran has always been about making the 3rd base easy to take and hold. Terran mid game economy is bullshit as long as mules are in the game. This was made evident by all the terran tears when they realised 2 fully saturated bases was insufficient to provide for their infrastructure they'normally' have.
Chrono is the reason protoss are called 'gimmicky'. More than FF. More than warp gate. Protoss would hit some stupid timing via chrono and have yet another cheesey win. Everything protoss that has a timer got nerfed early WOL to make up for the fact that it could be rushed out too early via chrono. It should be ditched and everything that's not from a warp gate should have research / production time reduced by 15%
On September 11 2015 08:32 BisuDagger wrote: As someone who was outspoken against removing the three macro abilites, I actually came to agree with the change. Now that I'm pro removal I'm upset again lol.
i was never strongly for or against it. i think this is where a really smart, visionary type game designer is needed. is DK that guy?
I am the first to admit when I was wrong about something. I didn't want the macro removed, but as far as I feel they made a good decision to remove them. * Check! DK did good*
Now they are bringing all of it back and a ton of variations. I personally believe there is a ton to fix and balance remaining that any time further spent on this is time wasted. I personally wish they stood by the decision especially since I was already convinced to change my mind. * grumble grumble DK!*
David Kim: Are we chasing the best design for each of these mechanics or is taking away a skill that players have been practicing for years better for the game in the long-term?
This mechanic is the most difficult because, design-wise, the current version is arguably better, however players are losing a skill they’ve been practicing for years, which isn't ideal
Get the fuck over it.
Reversing the removal of macro mechanics is extremely disappointing.
I really don't think I'm going to purchase LOTV =/
I'm so disappointed that they're reverting to the status quo by their own admission, instead of taking the time to truly make the game the best it could be.
I've never seen a AAA developer be so lazy about updating and maintaining their product to the highest quality level possible. I don't worship Riot, but by comparison their developer staff blows David Kim and company out of the water in terms of making communication and game design.
I still check TL now and then and after years of living and breathing SC2 I just can't give a shit anymore. I think the straw that broke the camels back was when they utterly failed to listen to the single largest community on the most obvious problem.
On September 11 2015 03:23 ffadicted wrote: RIP no macro mechanics... Removing them was the best thing that ever happened to sc2, and all we needed was some rebalancing... But blizzard too lazy, prob being pushed to release the game too early, and reverting everything back to HotS status.
So disappointed
Also, on the larva stack... Do they not realize people are just going to make a ton of queen and keep infinity stacking larva on the same hatch? How is that ever gonna work lmao... That cannot be balanced
I agree with you 100%. I had high hopes that they would actually try some balancing for the no macro mechanics, but instead they just kind of did it and reverted within a week. I mean now it's looking like their going to go back to hots except with slightly less minerals/gas, more workers at start and a couple of new units.
I was starting to get very hopeful for lotv once they did some of their big changes, but alas I should have known it was going to be reverted. I'm shocked they haven't reverted the mineral/gas change yet tbh. Unless they decide to revert back to nno macro mechanics or something lotv is on my no buy list for now.
I'm happy with Zerg stackable injects as long as there's some way to prevent 5 queens from using up all their energy on one hatchery. Maybe, each subsequent inject has less production (like Devourer spores). Or having a max inject amount.
This change is... better than the previous one with automated everything but I can't help but be losing faith here. I think most people seemed to love no macro boosters with the MASSIVE EXCEPTION of automated shit. Speaking of which, they never did try just removing inject full stop.
I don't feel like they gave no macro boosters a chance here, with some balancing I think it could be the perfect version of SC2.
On September 11 2015 10:41 Kharnage wrote: Mules are stupid. Really stupid. They always have been, they always will be. 2 base terran has always been more powerful than everyone else, which is why balancing vs terran has always been about making the 3rd base easy to take and hold. Terran mid game economy is bullshit as long as mules are in the game. This was made evident by all the terran tears when they realised 2 fully saturated bases was insufficient to provide for their infrastructure they'normally' have.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I'm almost positive mass terran bitching got mules put back, which caused the automation of everything, which caused even more backlash, which caused Blizz to say fuck it.
Blizzard, you're already making massive, sweeping changes weekly at this point. Just TRY without macro mechanics or automated shit. If we can handle the 30 damage mega zealot and those 2 weeks everything was ZvZ we can handle this for a week at least.
The major punishment for forgeting inject is lack of larvae when you're under pressure and need units. Inject stack won't solve anything since the player will still have to wait 40 seconds for larvae.
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
We should rename the genre to RTM real time mechanical game
I have zero interest in people with great strategic thinking but no mechanics to back it up. I'm very happy with SC2 being a mechanically demanding game. If you disagree with that point of view that's absolutely fine, that's just a personal opinion, nothing to get upset about.
The problem, outside of making the game almost impossible to get into, is that it rewards only one style of play. Outside of some lucky un scouted timing attacks and cheese the mechanically superior player will just outright win all the time. Lets take the below radar chart. The person (since I was lazy aka "Series 1") will will a disproportionate amount of times compared to the other two players simply because he is superior at one facet of the game. The game should strive to reward all aptitudes not just simply muscle memory.
Why would it reward only one style of play ? A mechanically sound player can still choose to go defensive (Rain vs Maru) or craft the perfect all-in to dismantle his opponent's predictable build (Polt vs Classic on Overgrowth). What I don't want to see is some 100 APM Protoss taking out games of INnoVation because he so obviously outsmarted him with his delayed oracle into delayed DTs.
Your paranoid statement about Innovation losing to some 100 APM Protoss will not happen even in macro-less LotV. Because LotV should, in theory, reward the player who has fast decision making and very strong multi-task. And yes you still have macro in LotV because you need to constantly move workers around and expand out. It is there it is just less important. But I'll also circle around and ask this -- why not? Is it the worst thing in the world when the Dolphins (sorry American Football) busted out the never-before-seen Wildcat formation against the Patriots and beat them? Is it terrible that Virginia Tech used a exotic defensive formation to beat Ohio State last year? No. Just because you cannot adapt to a situation in a game means you didn't deserve to win the game. Now your previous statement is comparing two top level pro gamers. This is a problem I've been having lately with TL in regards to macro-less and LotV direction in general. You are comparing two people who are already nearly perfect in the mechanics department. Starcraft should not be a game you are only allowed to play if you've already put in 1000 hours to perfect your mechanics. That is not a viable game for the future. People are trying to perserve this sacred ground that is the pro gamer scene at the cost of the actual longevity of the game. The game needs to be accessible from the very first instance you load it up and play around with it. At the moment it is not. You can only start to worry about practicing and working on your micro and build variance once you've secured enough hours into the game to have at least passable mechanics. The game needs to be fun at all skill levels not just the highest. The game needs to reward players for player versus player interactions not just player versus mechanics interactions. Take any Diamond replay and you could point out 100 mechanical mistakes they made that if they didn't they could have won the game regardless of any micro failings. How many times can you load up a Diamond vs Diamond replay and try and boil something down to a player versus player interaction as the true cause of a loss? Probably less than half.
I think this makes the most sense of anything I've read so far in this thread. I watched a game of BW today and it was great. The macro/econ is not nearly as intense as SC2. The units comps are much simpler. It's much more accessible to newbs. Yet it is still a ton of fun to play and has a thriving meta that's still changing. I like protoss chrono boost because it allows players to hit a huge variety of unique timings, but mostly macros just punish players who do not hit their injects/mules/chronos perfectly.
I'm convinced that anyone claiming brood war is more acessible than sc2+macro mechanics has never played brood war. That being said i still prefer no mule and a zerg that doesn't get 60% of its larvae from queens.
On September 11 2015 12:13 Cyro wrote: I'm convinced that anyone claiming brood war is more acessible than sc2+macro mechanics has never played brood war. That being said i still prefer no mule and a zerg that doesn't get 60% of its larvae from queens.
You really think so? I played broodwar from ages 12-15 (probably 4-6 hours a day) and was pretty damn good. I come back to SC2 about 2 months ago in HotS and the game has been like a slap in the face. I know I was gone from RTS for a long time, but damn, I'm a lot smarter now than I was when I was a kid. That should be worth something, right?
On September 11 2015 10:55 Lunareste wrote: I've never seen a AAA developer be so lazy about updating and maintaining their product to the highest quality level possible. I don't worship Riot, but by comparison their developer staff blows David Kim and company out of the water in terms of making communication and game design.
this comment is off base. Blizzard puts way more resources into WoW than Riot puts into LoL. So let's call Riot lazy about LoL then... umm ya ok.
the revenue potential of the game limits DK's resources to such an extent that making a huge change can not be justified financially... that is what is really going on here. its not being "so lazy". Give DK's team another $20 million in development budget and add a year to the release date and of course DK could pull off this big change.
On September 11 2015 12:13 Cyro wrote: I'm convinced that anyone claiming brood war is more acessible than sc2+macro mechanics has never played brood war. That being said i still prefer no mule and a zerg that doesn't get 60% of its larvae from queens.
You really think so? I played broodwar from ages 12-15 (probably 4-6 hours a day) and was pretty damn good. I come back to SC2 about 2 months ago in HotS and the game has been like a slap in the face. I know I was gone from RTS for a long time, but damn, I'm a lot smarter now than I was when I was a kid. That should be worth something, right?
Every BW player I met told me Iccup was hard as fuck.
On September 11 2015 12:13 Cyro wrote: I'm convinced that anyone claiming brood war is more acessible than sc2+macro mechanics has never played brood war. That being said i still prefer no mule and a zerg that doesn't get 60% of its larvae from queens.
You really think so? I played broodwar from ages 12-15 (probably 4-6 hours a day) and was pretty damn good. I come back to SC2 about 2 months ago in HotS and the game has been like a slap in the face. I know I was gone from RTS for a long time, but damn, I'm a lot smarter now than I was when I was a kid. That should be worth something, right?
Every BW player I met told me Iccup was hard as fuck.
I was very young back when I was playing BW, so maybe I don't remember the game as clearly. I also had ten years to forget all the hotkeys and muscle memory.
On September 11 2015 12:13 Cyro wrote: I'm convinced that anyone claiming brood war is more acessible than sc2+macro mechanics has never played brood war. That being said i still prefer no mule and a zerg that doesn't get 60% of its larvae from queens.
You really think so? I played broodwar from ages 12-15 (probably 4-6 hours a day) and was pretty damn good. I come back to SC2 about 2 months ago in HotS and the game has been like a slap in the face. I know I was gone from RTS for a long time, but damn, I'm a lot smarter now than I was when I was a kid. That should be worth something, right?
You try to play sc2 to completely different standards that you tried to play brood war, though.
To either game if you're just messing around then you probably don't even care about finer mechanics.
If you're trying to make a game that even remotely resembles a pro game, it's way easier in Starcraft 2.
I got BW when i was like 10 years old, sc2 at ~14 and went silver to master in WOL - i played wc3 and total annihilation too and playing with no building hotkeys, needing like 8 actions instead of 1-2 to give a move command to a basic marine army etc.. it's uncomparable to what we have today. There's so much BS it's hard to even get started. Stuff like P for Pylon that wasn't rebindable.
I think removing macro mechanics and having hatcheries make more larvae (instead of ~60% of zergs larvae coming from queens) would be good for the game, but that's because in LOTV, basically every game has a natural expansion for both sides between the 1-2 minute mark, it doesn't even register as taking an expansion any more, that's just how you start the game. It's way more normal to be playing on 3-4 nexii/cc/hatcheries than it ever has been.
LOTV without macro mechanics is mechanically just as hard as HOTS and harder than WOL unless you play zerg, where auto injects are a bit silly. My preferred system for them would be balance with less emphasis on injects, rather than having injects done automatically.
On September 11 2015 11:37 Little-Chimp wrote: This change is... better than the previous one with automated everything but I can't help but be losing faith here. I think most people seemed to love no macro boosters with the MASSIVE EXCEPTION of automated shit. Speaking of which, they never did try just removing inject full stop.
I don't feel like they gave no macro boosters a chance here, with some balancing I think it could be the perfect version of SC2.
On September 11 2015 10:41 Kharnage wrote: Mules are stupid. Really stupid. They always have been, they always will be. 2 base terran has always been more powerful than everyone else, which is why balancing vs terran has always been about making the 3rd base easy to take and hold. Terran mid game economy is bullshit as long as mules are in the game. This was made evident by all the terran tears when they realised 2 fully saturated bases was insufficient to provide for their infrastructure they'normally' have.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I'm almost positive mass terran bitching got mules put back, which caused the automation of everything, which caused even more backlash, which caused Blizz to say fuck it.
Blizzard, you're already making massive, sweeping changes weekly at this point. Just TRY without macro mechanics or automated shit. If we can handle the 30 damage mega zealot and those 2 weeks everything was ZvZ we can handle this for a week at least.
At the start of removing macro changes I was completely opposed.
But as I listened to the arguments for removing macro mechanics I became open to the idea, then I started to play and experience it.
Now that I have tried the game without macro mechanics I have been enjoying it a lot more. I think it is a great change!
I am very disappointed they want to revert it back. This change was barely experimented with, clearly we should have been trying these things early in the beta. If people want the old mechanics let them play the hots version of the game and make LOTV truly different. At the end of the day people will choose which version is best, and I think they will choose LOTV.
Terran mules are total shit. I think last weeks answer was a pretty elegant one to address the problem of early economy for terran. The new solution for overlapping mules is terrible in my opinion.
This change didn't get a fair chance, please remove the macro boosters again.
During the removal of macro mechanics I saw many Terrans just quit the game. On ladder I saw Terrans that were 0-12, 1-14, etc. Toward the end they started to skip orbitals and Terran began actually doing well. I feel like they (David Kim, Blizzard) Almost added the MULE back as a concession to the cries across the board, especially from Terrans.
On September 11 2015 13:38 crazedrat wrote: During the removal of macro mechanics I saw many Terrans just quit the game. On ladder I saw Terrans that were 0-12, 1-14, etc. Toward the end they started to skip orbitals and Terran began actually doing well. I feel like they (David Kim, Blizzard) Almost added the MULE bac as a concession to the cries across the board, especially from Terrans.
Speaking as a terran player the game did not feel like it played out well. Being beaten to a pulp over and over again was just icing on the cake.
It seems that there's one big flaw in this beta testing thing. Each patch isn't on long enough for a meta game to evolve. No macro mechanics could have been developed but it wasn't around long enough for a rudimentary meta. Now there's auto macro. Now there's stackable injects and non stackable mules. All within a few weeks. No one gets a chance to feel things out. Maybe Terran could defend adept/warprism all-ins if given more than one week to figure out a solid meta/strategy. The sample sizes being used to change the beta seem way too small.
On September 11 2015 13:38 crazedrat wrote: During the removal of macro mechanics I saw many Terrans just quit the game. On ladder I saw Terrans that were 0-12, 1-14, etc. Toward the end they started to skip orbitals and Terran began actually doing well. I feel like they (David Kim, Blizzard) Almost added the MULE back as a concession to the cries across the board, especially from Terrans.
Those are retards and can't think at all. The reason Terran suffered is because they were balanced around mules. The best MM out of the three. When it was removed, Terran suffered a lot, especially since the harassment options was not nerfed to keep it balanced. The game was balanced with MM vs Harassment units. Now that MM was gone, Harassment units were too strong and broken. So once a T lose like 15-20 workers at once, it is impossible to get back into the game without major mistake from the other side.
Too many workers in a single base making harassment units more effective. The issue that some units were designed specially to be anti workers.
If those were addressed too, it will be much better situation than we had at the start of removal of MM.
On September 11 2015 14:12 PorkSoda wrote: It seems that there's one big flaw in this beta testing thing. Each patch isn't on long enough for a meta game to evolve. No macro mechanics could have been developed but it wasn't around long enough for a rudimentary meta. Now there's auto macro. Now there's stackable injects and non stackable mules. All within a few weeks. No one gets a chance to feel things out. Maybe Terran could defend adept/warprism all-ins if given more than one week to figure out a solid meta/strategy. The sample sizes being used to change the beta seem way too small.
Yeah, it's a bit confusing that they somehow thought that removing these 3 mechanics would somehow balance the races out.
Mules are a massive boost to Terran. It's not suprise at all to see them lose every game after taking it out. It's insane to think they they wouldn't need to look at balancing some costs or something to balance it out.
Instead, they just put it back.
*Confused*
No real attempt at making it work, like reducing scv production time or something. Just "well, that didn't work. too hard"
I think they realized after removing MM that it could work, but how much time would it take to balance and figure out? With the game being released soon, I dont think they have the time or money to pull it off. Such a shame. Wish they could bump back the release date to get everything truly right, rather than release a flawed multiplayer. Im guessing the game will be released with a instant balance update patch and multiple to follow shortly after.
How will all this effect tournaments and leagues as well? Will they all switch to LOTV or wait till its in a better spot? I guess we will see where the games at when its released...
Damn they came back from the fucking grave where they bellonged.
Starcraft is about strategy. Macro is good when it is a decision making / planning issue. To know when to make units and when to upgrade stuff, when to skip workers and all is the real difficulty of macro.
It's not about : "I spamm faster than my oponent" and it should never fucking be.
Mules weeeeeeeeeere so fucking stupid. No interest. They was really no choice between eco and scan, and people choose eco 90 % of the time - they HAD to. So yeah...
Chrono is kinda cool for the decision making part. So it can stay !
Zerg inject is reaaaaaaaaaally dumb. You have no decision to make it's like "inject inject inject" and if you don't do it you're behind. It brings no value to the game. You could have a game mechanic like you should press some button every X seconds and it would be the same thing, like bus drivers. Damn.
Sad to see them fucking come back.
And then you think that all the units that are sadly damaged. And nothing happens for them.
On September 11 2015 14:42 NyxNax wrote: I think they realized after removing MM that it could work, but how much time would it take to balance and figure out? With the game being released soon, I dont think they have the time or money to pull it off. Such a shame. Wish they could bump back the release date to get everything truly right, rather than release a flawed multiplayer. Im guessing the game will be released with a instant balance update patch and multiple to follow shortly after.
How will all this effect tournaments and leagues as well? Will they all switch to LOTV or wait till its in a better spot? I guess we will see where the games at when its released...
This is what happens when you derp around the first 3 months of the beta and at the last month you say "hey lets remove MM and see what happens! Oh man too much balance needed and no time, meh lets just revert back and call it a day".
On September 11 2015 14:54 HonorZ wrote: Damn they came back from the fucking grave where they bellonged.
Starcraft is about strategy. Macro is good when it is a decision making / planning issue. To know when to make units and when to upgrade stuff, when to skip workers and all is the real difficulty of macro.
It's not about : "I spamm faster than my oponent" and it should never fucking be.
Mules weeeeeeeeeere so fucking stupid. No interest. They was really no choice between eco and scan, and people choose eco 90 % of the time - they HAD to. So yeah...
Chrono is kinda cool for the decision making part. So it can stay !
Zerg inject is reaaaaaaaaaally dumb. You have no decision to make it's like "inject inject inject" and if you don't do it you're behind. It brings no value to the game. You could have a game mechanic like you should press some button every X seconds and it would be the same thing, like bus drivers. Damn.
Sad to see them fucking come back.
And then you think that all the units that are sadly damaged. And nothing happens for them.
You're playing the wrong game genre if you ONLY want strategy.
On September 11 2015 14:54 HonorZ wrote: Damn they came back from the fucking grave where they bellonged.
Starcraft is about strategy. Macro is good when it is a decision making / planning issue. To know when to make units and when to upgrade stuff, when to skip workers and all is the real difficulty of macro.
It's not about : "I spamm faster than my oponent" and it should never fucking be.
Mules weeeeeeeeeere so fucking stupid. No interest. They was really no choice between eco and scan, and people choose eco 90 % of the time - they HAD to. So yeah...
Chrono is kinda cool for the decision making part. So it can stay !
Zerg inject is reaaaaaaaaaally dumb. You have no decision to make it's like "inject inject inject" and if you don't do it you're behind. It brings no value to the game. You could have a game mechanic like you should press some button every X seconds and it would be the same thing, like bus drivers. Damn.
Sad to see them fucking come back.
And then you think that all the units that are sadly damaged. And nothing happens for them.
You're playing the wrong game genre if you ONLY want strategy.
The game currently is 99% mechanics, whats wrong if it was 70% or 60% mechanics?
I really hope that they'll keep the auto-injects somehow. It was such a pleasure to focus entirely on the battlefield for several minutes without having to execute that robotic inject cycle.
On September 11 2015 14:54 HonorZ wrote: Damn they came back from the fucking grave where they bellonged.
Starcraft is about strategy. Macro is good when it is a decision making / planning issue. To know when to make units and when to upgrade stuff, when to skip workers and all is the real difficulty of macro.
It's not about : "I spamm faster than my oponent" and it should never fucking be.
Mules weeeeeeeeeere so fucking stupid. No interest. They was really no choice between eco and scan, and people choose eco 90 % of the time - they HAD to. So yeah...
Chrono is kinda cool for the decision making part. So it can stay !
Zerg inject is reaaaaaaaaaally dumb. You have no decision to make it's like "inject inject inject" and if you don't do it you're behind. It brings no value to the game. You could have a game mechanic like you should press some button every X seconds and it would be the same thing, like bus drivers. Damn.
Sad to see them fucking come back.
And then you think that all the units that are sadly damaged. And nothing happens for them.
You're playing the wrong game genre if you ONLY want strategy.
The game currently is 99% mechanics, whats wrong if it was 70% or 60% mechanics?
On September 11 2015 14:54 HonorZ wrote: Damn they came back from the fucking grave where they bellonged.
Starcraft is about strategy. Macro is good when it is a decision making / planning issue. To know when to make units and when to upgrade stuff, when to skip workers and all is the real difficulty of macro.
It's not about : "I spamm faster than my oponent" and it should never fucking be.
Mules weeeeeeeeeere so fucking stupid. No interest. They was really no choice between eco and scan, and people choose eco 90 % of the time - they HAD to. So yeah...
Chrono is kinda cool for the decision making part. So it can stay !
Zerg inject is reaaaaaaaaaally dumb. You have no decision to make it's like "inject inject inject" and if you don't do it you're behind. It brings no value to the game. You could have a game mechanic like you should press some button every X seconds and it would be the same thing, like bus drivers. Damn.
Sad to see them fucking come back.
And then you think that all the units that are sadly damaged. And nothing happens for them.
You're playing the wrong game genre if you ONLY want strategy.
The game currently is 99% mechanics, whats wrong if it was 70% or 60% mechanics?
its actually like 30% mechanics.
It's really not, improving from being better than 5% of players to being better than 90% of players is all about getting more money and spending it and that continues into the top 5%, top 2%, top 1%, 0.1%. This is very strongly correlated with MMR - it dwarves most other differences until you're already at the top of the ladder.
At this stage I am not interested in buying LotV at all. And Photon Overcharge on Pylons is a joke in whatever form. I absolutely don't understand this idea. And I still prefer WoL/HotS macro mechanics.
So after all these testing they still want to revert back to HotS??? Now I really start to feel they have no idea which direction they want to go. I understand the beta is running out of time and all, but this is not the time to back off... Please... You already have the courage to test the one thing that changes the core of sc2, at least give yourself some credits and follow it through. Changes everything back to what it is now is definitely not going to give this game any longevity what so ever. Disappointed...
On September 11 2015 14:54 HonorZ wrote: Damn they came back from the fucking grave where they bellonged.
Starcraft is about strategy. Macro is good when it is a decision making / planning issue. To know when to make units and when to upgrade stuff, when to skip workers and all is the real difficulty of macro.
It's not about : "I spamm faster than my oponent" and it should never fucking be.
Mules weeeeeeeeeere so fucking stupid. No interest. They was really no choice between eco and scan, and people choose eco 90 % of the time - they HAD to. So yeah...
Chrono is kinda cool for the decision making part. So it can stay !
Zerg inject is reaaaaaaaaaally dumb. You have no decision to make it's like "inject inject inject" and if you don't do it you're behind. It brings no value to the game. You could have a game mechanic like you should press some button every X seconds and it would be the same thing, like bus drivers. Damn.
Sad to see them fucking come back.
And then you think that all the units that are sadly damaged. And nothing happens for them.
You're playing the wrong game genre if you ONLY want strategy.
The game currently is 99% mechanics, whats wrong if it was 70% or 60% mechanics?
its actually like 30% mechanics.
It's really not, improving from being better than 5% of players to being better than 90% of players is all about getting more money and spending it and that continues into the top 5%, top 2%, top 1%, 0.1%. This is very strongly correlated with MMR - it dwarves most other differences until you're already at the top of the ladder.
There are multiple fallacies in that argument. First you are completely unable to quantify or measure differences in strategy, tactics, mindset, play time across different leagues and compare them to spending efficiency.
Secondly, spending efficiency isnt just correlated to macro, but also accounts for the learning, execution and deviation of standard builds/metas. That study doesnt take into account the effect of increased strategical knowledge and its effects on macro.
All we have here is information on how SQ differentiates between leagues of players. With no data actually backing it up, you cant actually say mechanics are a larger factor than either micro, strategy or tactics.
As for where my number comes from, it's based on overall success rates of mid-top tier pros from 2010 to now and the tools they used to reach that success.
On September 11 2015 15:27 Thouhastmail wrote: I'm out; won't but it. bye!
Same here . I was hopeful after the macro mechanics removal but now its back to the ultra boosted economy.So disappointed with Blizzard's stubbornness/laziness/whatever it is...
I will buy it in 2 years when its 20 bucks or less. I am not gonna pay the 40 or whatever dollars for something that looks worse then what I am playing now.
When they removed all the macro mechanics I almost jumped the gun and bought my preorder I am so happy I waited. I know they still have lots of changes but I will wait and continue observing it's development...
Blizzard is ruining SC for me, I always felt SC is unique because it is a game of mechanics as well as strategy. I still feel it is important that the game rewards players with good mechanical skill, what happened to the philosophy of making a game which is "easy to learn but difficult to master"? The way things are going LotV is going to be quite a meaningless RTS that doesn't deserve to be called Starcraft... I enjoyed improving every game when I played BW and even SC2 as I get better and more efficient. If everyone gets good straight away the game is just going to become boring. Sigh I wish Blizz would just make BW with better graphics sometimes ~_~
On September 11 2015 16:21 Khai wrote: Blizzard is ruining SC for me, I always felt SC is unique because it is a game of mechanics as well as strategy. I still feel it is important that the game rewards players with good mechanical skill, what happened to the philosophy of making a game which is "easy to learn but difficult to master"? The way things are going LotV is going to be quite a meaningless RTS that doesn't deserve to be called Starcraft... I enjoyed improving every game when I played BW and even SC2 as I get better and more efficient. If everyone gets good straight away the game is just going to become boring. Sigh I wish Blizz would just make BW with better graphics sometimes ~_~
I really can't understand why we need macro mechanics in lotv. We now have to manage more bases and then to defend them. That's plenty. You are much more vulnerable to harass than you were in wol or hots. Just remove them and allow players to focus on attacking and defending.
In my opionion this change goes in the wrong direction. I think the macro mechanics should be abolished completely or completely automated, so the players can focus on other, "most fun" things. More time spent controlling your army, the better the game will feel for the players. Furthermore, I am not really convinced that abolishing the mechanics makes the game easier: it simply permits to use your apms (from bronze to GM) to other aspects of the game. Look at archon tournaments: it is obvious that two people can do micro related things that one person cannot, so if you remove the need to pay attention to macro mechanics, still the most mechanical gifted player has plenty of fields in which take advantages of is mechanical proficiency (and probably is more fun to use your apms on microing your army better than, for example, on hitting the injects)
Every community feedback update people only whine only to whine against something it seems. Great changes are announced and tried in the beta (its a beta ffs) and people whine. Blizzard responds to the whiners and revert the changes and people whine again. Hell, people where whining about mules/Inject/CB since WoL.
People that have not even played the beta should not have a voice to talk about this game, or vote in the polls, or post on blizzard forums about LotV.
On September 11 2015 14:54 HonorZ wrote: Damn they came back from the fucking grave where they bellonged.
Starcraft is about strategy. Macro is good when it is a decision making / planning issue. To know when to make units and when to upgrade stuff, when to skip workers and all is the real difficulty of macro.
It's not about : "I spamm faster than my oponent" and it should never fucking be.
Mules weeeeeeeeeere so fucking stupid. No interest. They was really no choice between eco and scan, and people choose eco 90 % of the time - they HAD to. So yeah...
Chrono is kinda cool for the decision making part. So it can stay !
Zerg inject is reaaaaaaaaaally dumb. You have no decision to make it's like "inject inject inject" and if you don't do it you're behind. It brings no value to the game. You could have a game mechanic like you should press some button every X seconds and it would be the same thing, like bus drivers. Damn.
Sad to see them fucking come back.
And then you think that all the units that are sadly damaged. And nothing happens for them.
You're playing the wrong game genre if you ONLY want strategy.
The game currently is 99% mechanics, whats wrong if it was 70% or 60% mechanics?
I feel like people miss the point on the larvae stack. I've not read every pages, just the first 3 and the last 2, so someone may already have said that before, sorry.
I feel like stacking inject is a very good compromise. The game keep being a mechanic game, which it has always been. A very demanding game that is unforgiving for lesser player (except T and P, just kidding). But allowing to stack larvae makes it more easy to play for a newby. I've heard people talk about having 20 queens per hatch. This is so bullshit. What do you do of all the energy that is unused, and all the supply that this cost ? (maybe in ZvZ versus mutalisks, thank you Hydra). I've also heard about macro hatches being dead. I feel like this is completely wrong, and I'll try to develop it here.
What it allows is for a lesser player to compensate for his lack of apm. He can for instance do double inject if he has allways double energy. Here is an example : 1 queen at 50 energy (double injects). The player can stack two injects on his hatch, which would mimic a pro having perfect two consecutive injects. At the end of this, the queen has 50 energy again and the player can double stack. But overall he will have still miss one inject. and the stacked energy is only good later. If he had a macro hatch he would have had two sets of larvae. Now this allows player to improve also : I double stack injects, then I go back to my base at 30 energy and stack another one, etc... then I can improve over games, without it being to painful for my macro.
For the early game, people have good injects overall, so it won't effect anything. But for late game, who hasn't been back to his base seeing queens with full energy, then again the next time... ? if you stack injects, then at the latter stages of the game when micro is the most important, you have to worry much less about it. And again if you have a macro hatch, you'll get double larvae from your one full-energy queen. In this case, you can manage full time injects. This has got the good effect of the autocasted injects for bad player, but you still have to return occasionally to your base to re-stack injects. Better player will still have an advantages on this, cause every energy that is stacked is not used, just as when Terran stacks there marine production.
To make it short, I feel like this is a very good compromise. Better player will still have a big advantage over lesser player early and mid game. but macro mechanics will be more forgiving for lesser player in the late game, when you want to focus hard on your micro. I like this direction
NB : I have seen in the past a lot of people saying that stacking injects could be good (or at least an improvement). Now we may have it, everyone complains...
"Marauder was first introduced back in Wings of Liberty, for a very long time, even after the game launched, we were getting so much feedback, especially from Korean players, that Marauders were completely broken and needed to be nerfed. We never did nerf them, but they’ve been seen as well balanced all throughout HotS."
Just letme tell you what they`ve done to Marauders;
Concussive Shell requires upgrade Archons become Massive When Zealot Charges, it must give damage at least once
well, it is true that they never nerfed Marauder itself, but it sounds quite cherry-picking.
well all hope is lost for MM ever getting scrapped... im glad i got so much time to play back in that patch, because im pretty sure thats the best sc2 has ever been or will ever be
right now i have that awful feeling i had back in the wc3 beta when after going in the right direction for one patch they completely reverted directions and from there on just made the game worse and worse
it took tft to fix wc3. there wont be another chance to fix lotv im afraid.
In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
On September 11 2015 18:26 Thouhastmail wrote: "Marauder was first introduced back in Wings of Liberty, for a very long time, even after the game launched, we were getting so much feedback, especially from Korean players, that Marauders were completely broken and needed to be nerfed. We never did nerf them, but they’ve been seen as well balanced all throughout HotS."
Just letme tell you what they`ve done to Marauders;
Concussive Shell requires upgrade Archons become Massive When Zealot Charges, it must give damage at least once
well, it is true that they never nerfed Marauder itself, but it sounds quite cherry-picking.
Yep, they're full of crap these days. Maybe always... Also, Marauders have bad interactions with a lot of units (Stalkers come to mind) and are getting major nerfs in LotV directly and indirectly, so they're kinda not helping themselves here.
I have a theory that the fiddling with the macro mechanics and in the end going back to the HotS (or similar) versions was all part of an elaborate plan to burn the remaining time of beta in order to not have to do any substantial design changes.
also disappointed. i liked the no-macro-boosters build better, but i don't completely hate what we have now, and i might not mind the future changes. i'm disappointed because there are glaring solutions in my mind that are not being utilized. of course, this is all just my opinion.
1. miss chance uphill. Brood War had it. DotA 2 has it. it is %25 chance as it should be. this causes a DISadvantage to the low ground attacking position. DotA 2 went so far as to make wards un-missable, so supports could be more active on the map. this was one-line in the patch notes and it clearly defined its merit. they are not suffering in player numbers or viewer numbers. since the inception of all the WoL all-ins i have felt that the iteration of miss chance uphill would be a blanket nerf to offense and a buff to defense. of course, this would all be due to map terrain.
2. more of the roles from brood war are still missing. look at what was added in HotS, i spoilered for length.:+ Show Spoiler +
hellbat: firebat, it's even biological for some odd reason widow mine: spider mine, but they didn't limit them to 3... swarm host: supposed to be zerg's "siege" unit, so they didn't have to add in the lurker, so they wouldn't have to be like brood war. viper: consume and blinding cloud, which is clearly the defiler with dark swarm. unfortunately, without miss chance, blinding cloud becomes the inferior spell. by nature it does not protect the ally and causes the enemy to naturally attempt to escape the cloud by moving into melee range, instead of just standing there and missing at range. tempest: this is for some reason, a zerg guardian given to protoss with the intention of killing brood lords which have another hated element of the whole game: free units. i know i'm not the only one to remember the ZvZ final WoL finals with the brood vs brood battle on daybreak. so this was a band-aid for that issue, instead of reverting zerg's air siege unit to something that didn't create melee units.
my point here is that now we see the lurker, and the valkyrie, and the goliath in the game. we should not cut corners and leave out the shield battery, the scourge, the dark archon... where is maelstrom? lockdown? ghost too strong to tweak right? it used to have lockdown not EMP. EMP used to be high up on the tech, well and so did the ghost. these are all things that had specific roles that the races needed to utilize, and there are more missing that would solve a large amount of our current issues.
3. we still have not seen a modification to the mineral curve situation as has been clearly defined by the community. the issue here is not that we don't get DH. the issue is that we said that the solution was to build a curve into the income increase rate graph. it is still a straight line. they indentified a symptom here, again, not the larger disease. they saw the 3-active-base cap symptom and decided that they would simply make that a point that was much harder to reach, thereby mitigating the effects of the 3-base cap. it still exists. their only economic changes have been to move the starting point, and reduce the time spent at each base. full saturation of workers is still the maximum efficiency, even if it will be gone faster. maybe what i'm saying is wrong, but i want to test it myself instead of hearing that they did not like that in internal testing. that is a large enough change that it should have been publicly tested.
4: this part:
One other thing to note here is that one of our core design values in StarCraft II is to only make changes that are significant improvements.
i also grabbed this one:
Like we mentioned in another post, one of the most core philosophies for our SC2 design team is that if the change isn't completely awesome, we don't change it
the issue with this is that it is limiting. again, this is my opinion. the game doesn't have to be tedious. we don't need all of brood war's only 12 unit selection and only 1 building per control group. we do need miss chance. we do need maelstrom. and lockdown. and irratdiate. and the shield battery in some form. we need these to not be bastardizations like blinding cloud, and now irradiate for some reason given to zerg, or even fungal growth (basically plague + ensnare). they don't need to be clones, and they don't need to be bound to their old units, like EMP, to work or be easier to use or be exciting.
there is a purpose to all of the old starcraft things. we need some changes that might not be the most michael bay to the viewers. all of the races should have their AA AoE units. valk, corsair (phoenix is in a good spot, but the muta switch is still too stronk) and devourer (acid spore, a whole mechanic that is missing, and an awesome one at that). shield battery and the arbiter are both missing. we have all been wanting the mothership to either be a good arbiter or deleted. the mothership core isn't something we need. forcefield is interesting i guess, but we haven't seen any attention to that except for the ravager, yet another band-aid symptom fix.
make the big changes. make them now before we can't. miss chance first. after miss chance we can perhaps do some economy RATE work, macro boosters or not seems fine. then we can set our sights on ANY remaining missing Brood War mechanics that were so very starcraft. irradiate, stasis (aoe spell), lockdown, maelstrom, dark swarm, real recall...
this is the final game, so we should make sure nothing is missing, even if it means adding more than 2 units to for each race. even if it takes mroe time. most of the models i want are already there, as the lurker has been since WoL beta.
blizzard, remember the lurker. we have come full circle. give the universe the starcraft it deserves.
The less macromechanics in LotV, the more the pacing was right, the more it reminded me of BW, and the more it balanced play styles.
I can appreciate they need time to balance the game without old macro mechanics and are afraid of that, but seriously they can't revert to old macro mechanics and waste time on that. We know removing macro mechanics was the healthiest thing for SC2 that has happened.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I'm almost positive mass terran bitching got mules put back, which caused the automation of everything, which caused even more backlash, which caused Blizz to say fuck it.
Who are you blaming here? It sure wasn't the Terran player's fault - try playing ladder when you go 1-10 against opponents and see how much fun it is. I find it incredible that some players have zero understanding of the plight of other players when their race gets almost deleted from the game.
The thing I find most incredible though is that Blizzard do not seem to have anyone capable of making a detailed statistical analysis of the impact of changes, and also someone who can look at proposed changes and imagine what might happen if they were abused to the limit (mass Adept).
This trial and error approach seems to have too much error in it.
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
You are right, it's best to automate the mechanically most demanding part of Z macro, while also automating the least demanding parts of P/T macro and pretend that it doesn't defy logic.
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
You are right, it's best to automate the mechanically most demanding part of Z macro, while also automating the least demanding parts of P/T macro and pretend that it doesn't defy logic.
It's possible to introduce other game mechanics that require fast and accurate user input other than injects and make them more important for zerg. I.e. creep spread, overlord placement and things that Protoss/Terran don't have that are already pretty important in HotS.
On September 11 2015 18:26 Thouhastmail wrote: "Marauder was first introduced back in Wings of Liberty, for a very long time, even after the game launched, we were getting so much feedback, especially from Korean players, that Marauders were completely broken and needed to be nerfed. We never did nerf them, but they’ve been seen as well balanced all throughout HotS."
Just letme tell you what they`ve done to Marauders;
Concussive Shell requires upgrade Archons become Massive When Zealot Charges, it must give damage at least once
well, it is true that they never nerfed Marauder itself, but it sounds quite cherry-picking.
Ultras got buffed. Structures received more HP. All indirect consequences of the Maurauder.
On September 11 2015 17:15 gTank wrote: Every community feedback update people only whine only to whine against something it seems. Great changes are announced and tried in the beta (its a beta ffs) and people whine. Blizzard responds to the whiners and revert the changes and people whine again. Hell, people where whining about mules/Inject/CB since WoL.
People that have not even played the beta should not have a voice to talk about this game, or vote in the polls, or post on blizzard forums about LotV.
Couldnt agree more. I am also a little worried that people focus too much on mechanics. I would love to see more strategical depth. The last changes enabled this really well.
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
You are right, it's best to automate the mechanically most demanding part of Z macro, while also automating the least demanding parts of P/T macro and pretend that it doesn't defy logic.
I didn't say that but bringing one platinum game as proof that something is broken is BS. The beta is supposed to try stuff and see if things can be improved but this whining attitude combined with nothing really worthy as proof leads to nothing. Its basically like reading on riots forums when new champions are introduced.
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
You are right, it's best to automate the mechanically most demanding part of Z macro, while also automating the least demanding parts of P/T macro and pretend that it doesn't defy logic.
It's possible to introduce other game mechanics that require fast and accurate user input other than injects and make them more important for zerg. I.e. creep spread, overlord placement and things that Protoss/Terran don't have that are already pretty important in HotS.
Yes but these things are already in the game and weren't modified (=made more crucial for Z) when auto inject was introduced. IMO if auto inject were to stay, then it would be best to scrap MULES/Chrono and rebalance P/T resource gathering and unit production times.
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
You are right, it's best to automate the mechanically most demanding part of Z macro, while also automating the least demanding parts of P/T macro and pretend that it doesn't defy logic.
I didn't say that but bringing one platinum game as proof that something is broken is BS. The beta is supposed to try stuff and see if things can be improved but this whining attitude combined with nothing really worthy as proof leads to nothing. Its basically like reading on riots forums when new champions are introduced.
It was my observation, not some sort of indisputable proof. You are free to disagree. But, Blizz surely isn't reverting the changes because of whining, but because it is clear, that things can't stay this way.
The part of the macro mechanic discussion that was frustrating was when people kept saying "zerg macro too easy!"
This is part of why zerg has been a nightmare to balance. Zerg macro SHOULD be easy. Getting rid of injects and letting Zerg have the "easier" macro would have allowed for more consistent production from zerg(probably a higher amount of units for most players) and therefor the relative strength of the units could have been adjusted accordingly. Zerg is suppose to be weak units streaming across the map trying to flood the other races. The other races have either stronger units or better positional opportunities that are more cost effective to counter.
I was hoping we'd head back that direction, then what would have made a good vs. bad zerg would have been decision making, scouting, flanking, swarming, use of units like viper/infestor(if they were ever fixed right) etc.
Now we will just go back to "good zerg he click hatchery every 20 seconds" "bad zerg he forget!" Then they have to keep making zerg units stronger since lower players miss injects and can't produce as much, then higher level players are too strong because they don't miss injects.
I don't get why it is so hard to just get rid of inject, reduce hatchery cost to 250 minerals, allow for larva at a hatchery up to 5 larva, adjust spawn times on larva as needed, let zergs make macro hatches as needed, and let the queen be a defensive / creep spread unit as the creep spread is interesting to watch and a better strategic addition than inject.
If Zerg macro is too easy or easier, than why do they need a macro mechanic that makes macro harder just for the sake of making it harder? Let Terran and Toss, which the "harder" macro get the mechanics that help make macro a bit more forgiving. Zerg doesn't need a macro mechanic, its OK for zerg to not have it and focus on creep spread and defending any number of early game harass and let T and P have the mechanic that helps.
Also this new solution with multiple injects is dumb and you can already see the issues that can come up. It also doesn't really help players that forget to inject, it just means late game you can inject 3 times in a row and then move your queen away from your hatches and help fight, spread creep faster, etc.
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
You are right, it's best to automate the mechanically most demanding part of Z macro, while also automating the least demanding parts of P/T macro and pretend that it doesn't defy logic.
It's possible to introduce other game mechanics that require fast and accurate user input other than injects and make them more important for zerg. I.e. creep spread, overlord placement and things that Protoss/Terran don't have that are already pretty important in HotS.
Yes but these things are already in the game and weren't modified (=made more crucial for Z) when auto inject was introduced. IMO if auto inject were to stay, then it would be best to scrap MULES/Chrono and rebalance P/T resource gathering and unit production times.
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
You are right, it's best to automate the mechanically most demanding part of Z macro, while also automating the least demanding parts of P/T macro and pretend that it doesn't defy logic.
I didn't say that but bringing one platinum game as proof that something is broken is BS. The beta is supposed to try stuff and see if things can be improved but this whining attitude combined with nothing really worthy as proof leads to nothing. Its basically like reading on riots forums when new champions are introduced.
It was my observation, not some sort of indisputable proof. You are free to disagree. But, Blizz surely isn't reverting the changes because of whining, but because it is clear, that things can't stay this way.
So your observation in plat was so clear that it can't stay like this. Okay I give up.
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
You are right, it's best to automate the mechanically most demanding part of Z macro, while also automating the least demanding parts of P/T macro and pretend that it doesn't defy logic.
It's possible to introduce other game mechanics that require fast and accurate user input other than injects and make them more important for zerg. I.e. creep spread, overlord placement and things that Protoss/Terran don't have that are already pretty important in HotS.
Yes but these things are already in the game and weren't modified (=made more crucial for Z) when auto inject was introduced. IMO if auto inject were to stay, then it would be best to scrap MULES/Chrono and rebalance P/T resource gathering and unit production times.
On September 11 2015 19:54 gTank wrote:
On September 11 2015 19:42 CheddarToss wrote:
On September 11 2015 19:33 gTank wrote:
On September 11 2015 18:42 CheddarToss wrote:
On September 11 2015 18:40 gTank wrote:
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
You are right, it's best to automate the mechanically most demanding part of Z macro, while also automating the least demanding parts of P/T macro and pretend that it doesn't defy logic.
I didn't say that but bringing one platinum game as proof that something is broken is BS. The beta is supposed to try stuff and see if things can be improved but this whining attitude combined with nothing really worthy as proof leads to nothing. Its basically like reading on riots forums when new champions are introduced.
It was my observation, not some sort of indisputable proof. You are free to disagree. But, Blizz surely isn't reverting the changes because of whining, but because it is clear, that things can't stay this way.
So your observation in plat was so clear that it can't stay like this. Okay I give up.
How is it that you keep reading things, that I haven't written?
On September 11 2015 15:49 Yiome wrote: So after all these testing they still want to revert back to HotS??? Now I really start to feel they have no idea which direction they want to go. I understand the beta is running out of time and all, but this is not the time to back off... Please... You already have the courage to test the one thing that changes the core of sc2, at least give yourself some credits and follow it through. Changes everything back to what it is now is definitely not going to give this game any longevity what so ever. Disappointed...
If you keep the injects, I much prefer the stacking than auto injects. If you remove them completely, then what you say is a very good point, just maybe up to 8 larvae per hatcheries maximum.
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
You are right, it's best to automate the mechanically most demanding part of Z macro, while also automating the least demanding parts of P/T macro and pretend that it doesn't defy logic.
It's possible to introduce other game mechanics that require fast and accurate user input other than injects and make them more important for zerg. I.e. creep spread, overlord placement and things that Protoss/Terran don't have that are already pretty important in HotS.
Yes but these things are already in the game and weren't modified (=made more crucial for Z) when auto inject was introduced. IMO if auto inject were to stay, then it would be best to scrap MULES/Chrono and rebalance P/T resource gathering and unit production times.
On September 11 2015 19:54 gTank wrote:
On September 11 2015 19:42 CheddarToss wrote:
On September 11 2015 19:33 gTank wrote:
On September 11 2015 18:42 CheddarToss wrote:
On September 11 2015 18:40 gTank wrote:
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
You are right, it's best to automate the mechanically most demanding part of Z macro, while also automating the least demanding parts of P/T macro and pretend that it doesn't defy logic.
I didn't say that but bringing one platinum game as proof that something is broken is BS. The beta is supposed to try stuff and see if things can be improved but this whining attitude combined with nothing really worthy as proof leads to nothing. Its basically like reading on riots forums when new champions are introduced.
It was my observation, not some sort of indisputable proof. You are free to disagree. But, Blizz surely isn't reverting the changes because of whining, but because it is clear, that things can't stay this way.
So your observation in plat was so clear that it can't stay like this. Okay I give up.
How is it that you keep reading things, that I haven't written?
If that is not the point of your post, why would you even bring that up anyway? What do you want to tell us with comparing 3 plat players so that things have to get patched?
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
You are right, it's best to automate the mechanically most demanding part of Z macro, while also automating the least demanding parts of P/T macro and pretend that it doesn't defy logic.
It's possible to introduce other game mechanics that require fast and accurate user input other than injects and make them more important for zerg. I.e. creep spread, overlord placement and things that Protoss/Terran don't have that are already pretty important in HotS.
Yes but these things are already in the game and weren't modified (=made more crucial for Z) when auto inject was introduced. IMO if auto inject were to stay, then it would be best to scrap MULES/Chrono and rebalance P/T resource gathering and unit production times.
On September 11 2015 19:54 gTank wrote:
On September 11 2015 19:42 CheddarToss wrote:
On September 11 2015 19:33 gTank wrote:
On September 11 2015 18:42 CheddarToss wrote:
On September 11 2015 18:40 gTank wrote:
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
You are right, it's best to automate the mechanically most demanding part of Z macro, while also automating the least demanding parts of P/T macro and pretend that it doesn't defy logic.
I didn't say that but bringing one platinum game as proof that something is broken is BS. The beta is supposed to try stuff and see if things can be improved but this whining attitude combined with nothing really worthy as proof leads to nothing. Its basically like reading on riots forums when new champions are introduced.
It was my observation, not some sort of indisputable proof. You are free to disagree. But, Blizz surely isn't reverting the changes because of whining, but because it is clear, that things can't stay this way.
So your observation in plat was so clear that it can't stay like this. Okay I give up.
How is it that you keep reading things, that I haven't written?
If that is not the point of your post, why would you even bring that up anyway? What do you want to tell us with comparing 3 plat players so that things have to get patched?
The point is, that Blizzard's dev team has analysed the numbers and looked at the games, and has come to the conclusion that auto inject is bad for the game. And I happen to agree based on more than one observation. The one MC game was, at least to me, just one of those glaring examples that auto inject is terrible.
As I've said previously, I don't expect you to agree, and that is fine by me if you don't.
On September 11 2015 20:03 FLuE wrote: The part of the macro mechanic discussion that was frustrating was when people kept saying "zerg macro too easy!"
This is part of why zerg has been a nightmare to balance. Zerg macro SHOULD be easy. Getting rid of injects and letting Zerg have the "easier" macro would have allowed for more consistent production from zerg(probably a higher amount of units for most players) and therefor the relative strength of the units could have been adjusted accordingly. Zerg is suppose to be weak units streaming across the map trying to flood the other races. The other races have either stronger units or better positional opportunities that are more cost effective to counter.
I was hoping we'd head back that direction, then what would have made a good vs. bad zerg would have been decision making, scouting, flanking, swarming, use of units like viper/infestor(if they were ever fixed right) etc.
Now we will just go back to "good zerg he click hatchery every 20 seconds" "bad zerg he forget!" Then they have to keep making zerg units stronger since lower players miss injects and can't produce as much, then higher level players are too strong because they don't miss injects.
I don't get why it is so hard to just get rid of inject, reduce hatchery cost to 250 minerals, allow for larva at a hatchery up to 5 larva, adjust spawn times on larva as needed, let zergs make macro hatches as needed, and let the queen be a defensive / creep spread unit as the creep spread is interesting to watch and a better strategic addition than inject.
If Zerg macro is too easy or easier, than why do they need a macro mechanic that makes macro harder just for the sake of making it harder? Let Terran and Toss, which the "harder" macro get the mechanics that help make macro a bit more forgiving. Zerg doesn't need a macro mechanic, its OK for zerg to not have it and focus on creep spread and defending any number of early game harass and let T and P have the mechanic that helps.
I feel they should really try to minimize the impact of the macro mechanics. Make it so that you can still achieve a minor advantage by doing all these things, but don't have them be a core part of the macro aspect of the game (keep minerals low, always be producing, etc).
Larva inject provides a single larva, instead of multiple. Mules are just a temporary extra scv with normal mining. Could also be used on gas. Perhaps this mule can be converted into a Terran building like a drone. A minimal chronoboost that matches the power of the above two mechanics.
Just... don't revert back to HotS. The explosive macro really doesn't work for LotV.
On September 11 2015 20:31 a_flayer wrote: I feel they should really try to minimize the impact of the macro mechanics. Make it so that you can still achieve a minor advantage by doing all these things, but don't have them be a core part of the macro aspect of the game (keep minerals low, always be producing, etc).
Larva inject provides a single larva, instead of multiple. Mules are just a temporary extra scv with normal mining. Could also be used on gas. Perhaps this mule can be converted into a Terran building like a drone. A minimal chronoboost that matches the power of the above two mechanics.
Just... don't revert back to HotS. The explosive macro really doesn't work for LotV.
On September 11 2015 20:31 a_flayer wrote: I feel they should really try to minimize the impact of the macro mechanics. Make it so that you can still achieve a minor advantage by doing all these things, but don't have them be a core part of the macro aspect of the game (keep minerals low, always be producing, etc).
Larva inject provides a single larva, instead of multiple. Mules are just a temporary extra scv with normal mining. Could also be used on gas. Perhaps this mule can be converted into a Terran building like a drone. A minimal chronoboost that matches the power of the above two mechanics.
Just... don't revert back to HotS. The explosive macro really doesn't work for LotV.
That would be even better than the current MULE.
How is that? Buildings don't take longer than the MULE's duration to make, do they? It would just be like sending an SCV to make it, except you use the mule (energy) to make the building instead of mining time from an SCV. You would still pay minerals and gas for the building, obviously.
Anyway I'm just throwing out random stuff because I desperately want something other than WoL/HotS "macro mechanics".
I love all the people whining about how no matter what Blizzard does people bitch. Did anyone bitch when they made tank turrets track? Nope, and in fact that whole patch was well received. How many people would bitch if they fixed the game's econ?
Was anyone upset about Lurkers being added? Nope, it's a great unit.
Are a lot of people annoyed with Cyclones and Liberators (a flying version of what the siege tank should be, but isn't - a unit that can control space)? You bet. Because they the Cyclone is a shit unit and the Liberator overlaps with the tank, and is abusable as hell (fending off Liberators at the mineral line early game is fun, right?).
Were a lot of people annoyed with the macro mechanic removal patch? Yep. Was it a horrible patch? Yep. Do I think that the game would be better off without macro mechanics? Yes I do. But the fact remains that the patch itself was horrible. It broke the game, they needed to test it more internally and then make more sweeping chances to unit costs, build times, etc... Otherwise you end up with a shit patch.
This whole beta has been a mess. The initial design of the Cyclone was so stupid that my mom wouldn't have green lit it. The unit is still junk. The Herc was a joke. The econ is a band-aid. The Mothership Core is still in the game. The Adept is effectively a Roach with an awkward teleport. And recently, they wasted a huge amount of the beta testing a change that anyone with a brain knew the result of before it ever got implemented (shockingly, removing one of the games core mechanics would force drastic changes that Blizzard doesn't want to deal with).
People are vocal because these patches suck and the beta isn't living up to their unrealistic expectations (seems some people were expecting something other than more of the same). LotV is the follow up to an expansion that has had nearly every change removed from the game or heavily reworked since its release. Makes a man pessimistic.
I just hope they have done with it and buff DT speed like they tired to a couple of years ago. Is LotV going to be better than HotS? Maybe, time will tell. Wouldn't take much to make the game better than the Swarm Host days. But Blizzard clearly has missed a huge opportunity while floundering around making stupid changes that end up reverted and adding units that are so bad on paper it boggles the mind they got implemented.
On September 11 2015 20:31 a_flayer wrote: I feel they should really try to minimize the impact of the macro mechanics. Make it so that you can still achieve a minor advantage by doing all these things, but don't have them be a core part of the macro aspect of the game (keep minerals low, always be producing, etc).
Larva inject provides a single larva, instead of multiple. Mules are just a temporary extra scv with normal mining. Could also be used on gas. Perhaps this mule can be converted into a Terran building like a drone. A minimal chronoboost that matches the power of the above two mechanics.
Just... don't revert back to HotS. The explosive macro really doesn't work for LotV.
That would be even better than the current MULE.
How is that? Buildings don't take longer than the MULE's duration to make, do they? It would just be like sending an SCV to make it, except you use the mule (energy) to make the building instead of mining time from an SCV. You would still pay minerals and gas for the building, obviously.
Anyway I'm just throwing out random stuff because I desperately want something other than WoL/HotS "macro mechanics".
Well you did write that it could be "converted into a Terran building like a drone", which made me assume that the building wouldn't cost anything, since the MULE is free. It would be OK if the "call down SCV" could build buildings just like a regular SCV. However I doubt anyone would use that SCV in such a fashion, because it is less of a hassle to let it mine and use a normal SCV for making buildings, because it can't expire in the middle of construction.
On September 11 2015 20:31 a_flayer wrote: I feel they should really try to minimize the impact of the macro mechanics. Make it so that you can still achieve a minor advantage by doing all these things, but don't have them be a core part of the macro aspect of the game (keep minerals low, always be producing, etc).
Larva inject provides a single larva, instead of multiple. Mules are just a temporary extra scv with normal mining. Could also be used on gas. Perhaps this mule can be converted into a Terran building like a drone. A minimal chronoboost that matches the power of the above two mechanics.
Just... don't revert back to HotS. The explosive macro really doesn't work for LotV.
That would be even better than the current MULE.
How is that? Buildings don't take longer than the MULE's duration to make, do they? It would just be like sending an SCV to make it, except you use the mule (energy) to make the building instead of mining time from an SCV. You would still pay minerals and gas for the building, obviously.
Anyway I'm just throwing out random stuff because I desperately want something other than WoL/HotS "macro mechanics".
Well you did write that it could be "converted into a Terran building like a drone", which made me assume that the building wouldn't cost anything, since the MULE is free. It would be OK if the "call down SCV" could build buildings just like a regular SCV. However I doubt anyone would use that SCV in such a fashion, because it is less of a hassle to let it mine and use a normal SCV for making buildings, because it can't expire in the middle of construction.
It would convert into the building like a drone does, so it would basically make the MULE vanish as soon as you start the building and automate the construction of the buildings. Like a drone. There wouldn't be a unit to harass while the building is constructing and it would always complete the building. There is no timing out. I dont know how to make it any clearer.
Edit: it occurs to me that it would then be optimal to let it mine a bunch before converting it into a building, which is even more clicks. Perhaps this is desirable, but probably not. Still, hopefully the original point of reducing the impact of macro mechanics stands. I saw a suggestion for removing inject entirely and reducing the cost of hatcheries to compensate slightly. I like that one and considered it myself when Blizzard first started messing with it, but felt that - well something about Queens, anyway.
I am really feeling good about LOTV after this community update. I believe reverting the macro mechanics as proposed is the best way to go. They are just too fun and unique to the game to remove - and there are other ways of fixing some key issues such as chrono boost chaining, etc. I do believe in easy to learn, hard to master, but in a game like SC2 you need to keep the complexities of multi-tasking and macro since that it what draws everyone to want to even play a good RTS. HOTS had that bang on !
I also love the willingness for Blizzard to test some huge ideas, and completely revert and try something else if it does not feel good. Now is the time to feel out different models to improve the game. Later on, there will be plenty of time to adjust balance and individual unit design/armor/dps, etc.
I am also in agreement with the posters that indicated that keeping all HOTS macro mechanics would be great, but Blizzard could consider toning them down instead. I feel that this is the best option.
On September 11 2015 03:14 WrathSCII wrote: Are they that lazy to go back to HOTS just to avoid rebalancing on no MM? It was the best single fucking update during those months. And they kept for 2 weeks to completely remove it and never talk about it as it never happened.
WTF is wrong with these guys?!
we're back to the same old boat where 9/10 the person with simple better raw mechanics will win
And isn't that... great ? Strategy should only be the distinguishing factor between people of the same mechanical level.
We should rename the genre to RTM real time mechanical game
I have zero interest in people with great strategic thinking but no mechanics to back it up. I'm very happy with SC2 being a mechanically demanding game. If you disagree with that point of view that's absolutely fine, that's just a personal opinion, nothing to get upset about.
The problem, outside of making the game almost impossible to get into, is that it rewards only one style of play. Outside of some lucky un scouted timing attacks and cheese the mechanically superior player will just outright win all the time. Lets take the below radar chart. The person (since I was lazy aka "Series 1") will will a disproportionate amount of times compared to the other two players simply because he is superior at one facet of the game. The game should strive to reward all aptitudes not just simply muscle memory.
Why would it reward only one style of play ? A mechanically sound player can still choose to go defensive (Rain vs Maru) or craft the perfect all-in to dismantle his opponent's predictable build (Polt vs Classic on Overgrowth). What I don't want to see is some 100 APM Protoss taking out games of INnoVation because he so obviously outsmarted him with his delayed oracle into delayed DTs.
Your paranoid statement about Innovation losing to some 100 APM Protoss will not happen even in macro-less LotV. Because LotV should, in theory, reward the player who has fast decision making and very strong multi-task. And yes you still have macro in LotV because you need to constantly move workers around and expand out. It is there it is just less important. But I'll also circle around and ask this -- why not? Is it the worst thing in the world when the Dolphins (sorry American Football) busted out the never-before-seen Wildcat formation against the Patriots and beat them? Is it terrible that Virginia Tech used a exotic defensive formation to beat Ohio State last year? No. Just because you cannot adapt to a situation in a game means you didn't deserve to win the game.
Now your previous statement is comparing two top level pro gamers. This is a problem I've been having lately with TL in regards to macro-less and LotV direction in general. You are comparing two people who are already nearly perfect in the mechanics department. Starcraft should not be a game you are only allowed to play if you've already put in 1000 hours to perfect your mechanics. That is not a viable game for the future. People are trying to perserve this sacred ground that is the pro gamer scene at the cost of the actual longevity of the game. The game needs to be accessible from the very first instance you load it up and play around with it. At the moment it is not. You can only start to worry about practicing and working on your micro and build variance once you've secured enough hours into the game to have at least passable mechanics. The game needs to be fun at all skill levels not just the highest. The game needs to reward players for player versus player interactions not just player versus mechanics interactions. Take any Diamond replay and you could point out 100 mechanical mistakes they made that if they didn't they could have won the game regardless of any micro failings. How many times can you load up a Diamond vs Diamond replay and try and boil something down to a player versus player interaction as the true cause of a loss? Probably less than half.
I find it hilarious when people compare the tactical depth of pro sports to the one of STARCRAFT TWO LOL. Pro collective sports are endlessly more complicated.
Nerfing late game mules is simple, make command center only able to summon mules to the mineral field it occupies. NO distant summoning. done.
I think zerg inject fine as is in hots.
Chrono boost is fine as it is. However, I think nexus can accommodate more abilities such as recall.
I think it is hardest with zerg to macro because of injects but so what? Races should be different, remember?
What really disappointed me with this update is Blizzard's dogmatic belief that Marauder is a good unit!!!!! Marauder's concessive shell, sentries force fields together with roaches' rediculus healt what made sc2 inferior to Brood War. First 2 units made you, as an opponent, unable to do respond which has been frustrating as HELL, and roaches change the Zerg as a race and also negatively affected protoss since their gateway units are all weak against it. I think they should at least brought immortal to gateway with appropriate balancing, of course. SC2 is a mess, compared to Brood War, because of these three basic units, Marauder, Sentries and Roaches. We should just cut our loses and get rid of the with Legacy of the Void.
Would have preferred to see mule completely removed from the game (obviously with terran gaining something to make up for it, like adjusted unit costs etc.), but as ong as Zerg has to manually inject again I'm fine. Even when having to go broodlord infestor or swarm host every game, it has never been so unenjoyable for me to play Zerg. Without inject, it's way too easy to macro and zvz is pretty disgusting as everyone is gonna have the same amount of larvae, besides differences in hatch timings. I really wish they would have explored more ways to remove mule and adjust chrono, but autoinject is literally the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in starcraft 2, so I'm fine with their proposal. Not sure how I feel about this stacking thing though, but I'll take any form of manual inject over this autocasted bullshit. Glad I can go back to playing again whenever this patch drops.
Also they should just move pylon overcharge to nexi. No offensive bs anymore and it would be a great start to removing the mothership core. Hero units have no place in starcraft.
Also lol @ their marauder example. It wasn't as much the marauder's impact on balance as the marauders design. Terran bio does not need a dragoon that slows and it changed the game for the worse. SC2's problem has rarely been balance, but most of the time design. Stuff like forcefields, roaches, marauders, warpgates and being able to stockpile enough larvae to insta-remax in the lategame are issues that will continue to plague this game until starcraft 3 comes out...
On September 11 2015 18:26 Thouhastmail wrote: "Marauder was first introduced back in Wings of Liberty, for a very long time, even after the game launched, we were getting so much feedback, especially from Korean players, that Marauders were completely broken and needed to be nerfed. We never did nerf them, but they’ve been seen as well balanced all throughout HotS."
Just letme tell you what they`ve done to Marauders;
Concussive Shell requires upgrade Archons become Massive When Zealot Charges, it must give damage at least once
well, it is true that they never nerfed Marauder itself, but it sounds quite cherry-picking.
They also buffed immortal range and changed other timings to allow protoss/zerg to more easily stay on equal footing econonically etc.
This really is it... all gamers that care about pacing of the game, more diverse plays, and the longevity of SC2 should really think hard on this macro mechanic debate and make their voice known. Going back to HotS macro mechanics is the wrong choice, I am very confident of this. It has been made clear that even the Korean pros by majority want less macro clicking in LotV, which is a very intense game. Do not give up hope, never give up.
I really wasn't so bothered about things before but now I'm pretty bummed, as Terran I really enjoyed the lack of macro mechanics, I liked scanning and while it was not balanced I'd hoped that they'd actually thought it through a little bit and intend to address that... now I just wonder what the hell they were thinking throwing it out there in the first place. Urgh, such wasted potential.
I'll just quote Lalush from the other thread because it is one of the best takes on macro boosters I have read in a while.
On September 11 2015 21:18 LaLuSh wrote: Removing macro mechanics isn't going to make a dent in how many casuals play SC2. If you make a list of the barriers that keep people from getting into 1v1 multiplayer RTS, you can go on for 2 pages listing genre specific barriers before you get to anything directly design related.
Do you think most people know what a-move is? Do you think most people can box select effortlessly and accurately their first times playing an RTS? Do you think most people know they can use shift or control to select multiple buildings or box-select-add more units as opposed to just re-boxselecting every. single. time. ? Do you think most people know to use building hotkeys? Would you like to play a game where you had to repeat the same clicking pattern 300 times every game to repeat the same building action? What about using regular assignable hotkeys as opposed to re-boxselecting everything every single time? How many people have ever played a game where they had to regularly screen switch and keep their attention split between different locations on a map? You can play and enjoy a MOBA without ever screen switching, but can you enjoy an RTS without being comfortable at screen-switching?
I could list a million of those and they are all more relevant and bigger barriers than any of the bullshit design decisions we discuss in here. If you are capable in the above and the basics of RTS, I only then do you get to the point where any of this matters.
We act like tweaking macro mechanics matters for Starcraft 2's broader casual accessability. No, it only matters for those who are already comfortable with the RTS genre but aren't very good at the game. It matters in that it feeds into their delusion, where they believe inside each and every one of them resides a latent but repressed strategical genious. The only reason this genious hasn't emerged, of course, is because the button mashing nature of the game. This is also their main stated reason of hating the game.
So we reduce some clicks here, add some "meaningful" clicks there. The casuals find they still suck. And in the end of this exercise I'm going to bet we haven't changed the accessability of Starcraft in any measurable way whatsoever.
Please accept that you can't hit injects reliably (as I have accepted) and enjoy the game at your level. It is just for fun after all.
The changes gave good depth to macro mechanics, at least with terran. The Mule hammer was removed by the change, and you had to think more about using scans or supply drop. Suddenly Banshee opener in LotV was viable again.
Except for Zerg, that was honestly not well thought out, but in general the direction was really great.
I am really disappointed that they removed this, because there is a lot of macro going on in general.
Armored Adepts would be completely unvaiable against marauders and stalkers.
When the upgrades for the adept are changed then this unit should be balanced.
Also I made the experiences that the high damage per second rate of stimmed Terran bio with Medivac support wins against the slow damage per second rate of adepts.
Furthermore the Adept is looking light and not armored.
And armored Adepts would overlap with Stalkers.
No protoss will ever build an armored adept when they can build instead a stalker which has more attack range, has more mobility and movement speed, deals more damage per second, can shot air units and has the ability to teleport with blinkmicro.
Please just keep the adept light armored and viable.
On September 12 2015 02:01 Ingvar wrote: I'll just quote Lalush from the other thread because it is one of the best takes on macro boosters I have read in a while.
On September 11 2015 21:18 LaLuSh wrote: Removing macro mechanics isn't going to make a dent in how many casuals play SC2. If you make a list of the barriers that keep people from getting into 1v1 multiplayer RTS, you can go on for 2 pages listing genre specific barriers before you get to anything directly design related.
Do you think most people know what a-move is? Do you think most people can box select effortlessly and accurately their first times playing an RTS? Do you think most people know they can use shift or control to select multiple buildings or box-select-add more units as opposed to just re-boxselecting every. single. time. ? Do you think most people know to use building hotkeys? Would you like to play a game where you had to repeat the same clicking pattern 300 times every game to repeat the same building action? What about using regular assignable hotkeys as opposed to re-boxselecting everything every single time? How many people have ever played a game where they had to regularly screen switch and keep their attention split between different locations on a map? You can play and enjoy a MOBA without ever screen switching, but can you enjoy an RTS without being comfortable at screen-switching?
I could list a million of those and they are all more relevant and bigger barriers than any of the bullshit design decisions we discuss in here. If you are capable in the above and the basics of RTS, I only then do you get to the point where any of this matters.
We act like tweaking macro mechanics matters for Starcraft 2's broader casual accessability. No, it only matters for those who are already comfortable with the RTS genre but aren't very good at the game. It matters in that it feeds into their delusion, where they believe inside each and every one of them resides a latent but repressed strategical genious. The only reason this genious hasn't emerged, of course, is because the button mashing nature of the game. This is also their main stated reason of hating the game.
So we reduce some clicks here, add some "meaningful" clicks there. The casuals find they still suck. And in the end of this exercise I'm going to bet we haven't changed the accessability of Starcraft in any measurable way whatsoever.
Please accept that you can't hit injects reliably (as I have accepted) and enjoy the game at your level. It is just for fun after all.
I almost didn't post this, but after reading that comment, I feel I must reply with another perspective that addresses all ranges of players of RTS games.
Subject: Game Lifetime Truths - How to make a video game live longer: Make picking up an Alt Race a possibility.
I think everybody wants LotV to be successful and being the last installment, to really push SC2 closer to perfection. This post will be thoughts on what fans, maybe even pros, will need to consider as time goes on with their beloved Starcraft.
1. The older you get, the less time you will have to play a game. Unless you are a pro with no family, this is universally true 99.999% of the time. Would you like to continue to enjoy playing Starcraft 2, 3, 5 years from now? More?
2. The longer you play a game, the higher chance that you will get burned out and want some change.
3. A great change of pace is to pick up a new alt race in an RTS or a new character in a fighting game. This also makes you better at the game (Korean pros do it in SC2).
4. Once you are at a high enough level with your main, picking an Alt is only tolerable if learning the Alt takes a few months at most, maybe 3-4 months max to be at least competent and semi-close to your old level, assuming other skills transfer. Years to relearn is not acceptable.
5. Nobody wants to be at level 10 with their main and then have to play level 2 and 3 guys for 9+ months because they need xxxxx hours to be competent with something critical like basic macro mechanics (advanced macro and multitasking can come with time, you understand me I hope). The level 2 and 3 guys don't want to deal with you either, because they don't understand the parts of the game that you do. Nobody is satisfied.
6. Street Fighter 4 was a great example of this at the pro level. One of the best in the world, Daigo, used to only play one main and never an alt (usually Ryu) for years and years. Then SF4 came around, and while he remained at the top most of the time, the game was easier to master than older versions of Street Fighter. Some people were afraid the game was too easy, but the best guys were still the best. He was able to pick up an alt here and there, and eventually switched to a similar but different character.
Making macro mechanics less difficult or critical to winning is the way to succeed here. Make the game fun to pick up an alt race, and the game lives twice as long, provides twice as much enjoyment, and even gives insight into the other race's trials and tribulations which creates a better community.
I don't really understand what David Kim's team is doing with putting back the macro mechanics in a simplified form. Starcraft 2 is already one of the hardests games out there. Pleasing the masses generates the revenue for this game; not pleasing the 1% of the game that has already mastered the macro mechanics.
On September 12 2015 03:23 Ulargg wrote: I don't really understand what David Kim's team is doing with putting back the macro mechanics in a simplified form. Starcraft 2 is already one of the hardests games out there. Pleasing the masses generates the revenue for this game; not pleasing the 1% of the game that has already mastered the macro mechanics.
The game would be completely dead without a competitive scene so that should always be #1 concern - though it seems obvious enough that we can balance around other difficulty such as strategy, tactics, unit control, multitasking etc to let better players win at the top level.
You don't need injects giving 60% of zergs larvae in order to have a clear and large difference between a top 1% zerg from a top 0.1% zerg and in ways it makes the game worse for both the player and the viewer.
There are some upsides to such a system but i don't think it's worth it and i'd rather have a game where the #1 zerg in the world uses 4 control groups for his army and very good micro, rather than 1a2a and switching back to base camera to inject because missing a round of injects for 10 seconds would hurt a lot more than pro unit control would help.
On September 12 2015 01:47 Blacklizard wrote: This really is it... all gamers that care about pacing of the game, more diverse plays, and the longevity of SC2 should really think hard on this macro mechanic debate and make their voice known. Going back to HotS macro mechanics is the wrong choice, I am very confident of this. It has been made clear that even the Korean pros by majority want less macro clicking in LotV, which is a very intense game. Do not give up hope, never give up.
Ummm hate to break it to you but that part blizzard put in was total bs, they rehashed what the Korean community figures who went to the summit said they then used what they said as a justification for the macro mechanics removal. I've talked to some koreans and they've said that on their message boards all the higher level players are disagreeing with the macro mechanics changes and it's the lower leagues that are in favour, pretty similar to what is happening here.
Pretty sure the average current league of people who want the macro mechanics change is gold.
On September 12 2015 03:23 Ulargg wrote: I don't really understand what David Kim's team is doing with putting back the macro mechanics in a simplified form. Starcraft 2 is already one of the hardests games out there. Pleasing the masses generates the revenue for this game; not pleasing the 1% of the game that has already mastered the macro mechanics.
The game would be completely dead without a competitive scene so that should always be #1 concern - though it seems obvious enough that we can balance around other difficulty such as strategy, tactics, unit control, multitasking etc to let better players win at the top level.
You don't need injects giving 60% of zergs larvae in order to have a clear and large difference between a top 1% zerg from a top 0.1% zerg and in ways it makes the game worse for both the player and the viewer.
There are some upsides to such a system but i don't think it's worth it and i'd rather have a game where the #1 zerg in the world uses 4 control groups for his army and very good micro, rather than 1a2a and switching back to base camera to inject because missing a round of injects for 10 seconds would hurt a lot more than pro unit control would help.
On September 12 2015 01:47 Blacklizard wrote: This really is it... all gamers that care about pacing of the game, more diverse plays, and the longevity of SC2 should really think hard on this macro mechanic debate and make their voice known. Going back to HotS macro mechanics is the wrong choice, I am very confident of this. It has been made clear that even the Korean pros by majority want less macro clicking in LotV, which is a very intense game. Do not give up hope, never give up.
Ummm hate to break it to you but that part blizzard put in was total bs, they rehashed what the Korean community figures who went to the summit said they then used what they said as a justification for the macro mechanics removal. I've talked to some koreans and they've said that on their message boards all the higher level players are disagreeing with the macro mechanics changes and it's the lower leagues that are in favour, pretty similar to what is happening here.
Pretty sure the average current league of people who want the macro mechanics change is gold.
Oh boy ... Ha. That's a lot to unpack right there. Let's try: Blizzard is full of shit because of some Korean dudes I talk to say their message boards are a lot like ours here. These dudes are not full of shit. Trust me, some guy on the Internet. And, to pull something out of my ass, I'm going to make a broad generalization about the average current league of posters here on TL, with heavy pejorative undertones. Those are some good lulz, Ovid. You're better than this!
On September 12 2015 02:01 Ingvar wrote: I'll just quote Lalush from the other thread because it is one of the best takes on macro boosters I have read in a while.
On September 11 2015 21:18 LaLuSh wrote: Removing macro mechanics isn't going to make a dent in how many casuals play SC2. If you make a list of the barriers that keep people from getting into 1v1 multiplayer RTS, you can go on for 2 pages listing genre specific barriers before you get to anything directly design related.
Do you think most people know what a-move is? Do you think most people can box select effortlessly and accurately their first times playing an RTS? Do you think most people know they can use shift or control to select multiple buildings or box-select-add more units as opposed to just re-boxselecting every. single. time. ? Do you think most people know to use building hotkeys? Would you like to play a game where you had to repeat the same clicking pattern 300 times every game to repeat the same building action? What about using regular assignable hotkeys as opposed to re-boxselecting everything every single time? How many people have ever played a game where they had to regularly screen switch and keep their attention split between different locations on a map? You can play and enjoy a MOBA without ever screen switching, but can you enjoy an RTS without being comfortable at screen-switching?
I could list a million of those and they are all more relevant and bigger barriers than any of the bullshit design decisions we discuss in here. If you are capable in the above and the basics of RTS, I only then do you get to the point where any of this matters.
We act like tweaking macro mechanics matters for Starcraft 2's broader casual accessability. No, it only matters for those who are already comfortable with the RTS genre but aren't very good at the game. It matters in that it feeds into their delusion, where they believe inside each and every one of them resides a latent but repressed strategical genious. The only reason this genious hasn't emerged, of course, is because the button mashing nature of the game. This is also their main stated reason of hating the game.
So we reduce some clicks here, add some "meaningful" clicks there. The casuals find they still suck. And in the end of this exercise I'm going to bet we haven't changed the accessability of Starcraft in any measurable way whatsoever.
Please accept that you can't hit injects reliably (as I have accepted) and enjoy the game at your level. It is just for fun after all.
I think many of us are under this disillusion where we think that the macro changes were to make the game more "accessible"
Perhaps this is a side effect but if you read anything blizzard posted in the past its that the macro mechanics were too many clicks to expend on something that isn't visible and made the game (lotv, not hots) too complicated due to the new units, spells, and interactions.
Idc if my injects are perfect. I do care that a terran player can spend energy on mules all at once and protoss can dump all their chrono onto gateways while I'm stuck banking energy I can't spend bc I got into a micro battle with a couple liberators harassing my mineral lines while an army is knocking at my front door.
On September 12 2015 01:47 Blacklizard wrote: This really is it... all gamers that care about pacing of the game, more diverse plays, and the longevity of SC2 should really think hard on this macro mechanic debate and make their voice known. Going back to HotS macro mechanics is the wrong choice, I am very confident of this. It has been made clear that even the Korean pros by majority want less macro clicking in LotV, which is a very intense game. Do not give up hope, never give up.
On September 12 2015 01:47 Blacklizard wrote: This really is it... all gamers that care about pacing of the game, more diverse plays, and the longevity of SC2 should really think hard on this macro mechanic debate and make their voice known. Going back to HotS macro mechanics is the wrong choice, I am very confident of this. It has been made clear that even the Korean pros by majority want less macro clicking in LotV, which is a very intense game. Do not give up hope, never give up.
Agree.
On September 12 2015 02:01 Ingvar wrote: I'll just quote Lalush from the other thread because it is one of the best takes on macro boosters I have read in a while.
On September 11 2015 21:18 LaLuSh wrote: Removing macro mechanics isn't going to make a dent in how many casuals play SC2. If you make a list of the barriers that keep people from getting into 1v1 multiplayer RTS, you can go on for 2 pages listing genre specific barriers before you get to anything directly design related.
Do you think most people know what a-move is? Do you think most people can box select effortlessly and accurately their first times playing an RTS? Do you think most people know they can use shift or control to select multiple buildings or box-select-add more units as opposed to just re-boxselecting every. single. time. ? Do you think most people know to use building hotkeys? Would you like to play a game where you had to repeat the same clicking pattern 300 times every game to repeat the same building action? What about using regular assignable hotkeys as opposed to re-boxselecting everything every single time? How many people have ever played a game where they had to regularly screen switch and keep their attention split between different locations on a map? You can play and enjoy a MOBA without ever screen switching, but can you enjoy an RTS without being comfortable at screen-switching?
I could list a million of those and they are all more relevant and bigger barriers than any of the bullshit design decisions we discuss in here. If you are capable in the above and the basics of RTS, I only then do you get to the point where any of this matters.
We act like tweaking macro mechanics matters for Starcraft 2's broader casual accessability. No, it only matters for those who are already comfortable with the RTS genre but aren't very good at the game. It matters in that it feeds into their delusion, where they believe inside each and every one of them resides a latent but repressed strategical genious. The only reason this genious hasn't emerged, of course, is because the button mashing nature of the game. This is also their main stated reason of hating the game.
So we reduce some clicks here, add some "meaningful" clicks there. The casuals find they still suck. And in the end of this exercise I'm going to bet we haven't changed the accessability of Starcraft in any measurable way whatsoever.
Please accept that you can't hit injects reliably (as I have accepted) and enjoy the game at your level. It is just for fun after all.
This is a good point for the OPPOSITE of what you (and maybe he) intended. This is basically stating that bad player will still be bad players, good players will still be good players, and the macro mechanics do not make a difference in that.
Which means we should be supporting the BEST DESIGN DECISION. And even Blizzard admits going back to HotS manual is an inferior design in their post.
On September 11 2015 03:15 [PkF] Wire wrote: I guess we're going to get something fairly reasonable in the end. It's like watching a thought process that could be done in twenty seconds being painstakingly extended longer and longer.
Fine tuning, I'm waiting for you. And yeah, warpgate change sucks, split energy and warp-in power.
I cannot understand how someone like you is allowed to keep spouting out shit on TL.
On September 11 2015 18:38 CheddarToss wrote: In all honesty, introducing auto injects was a bad idea from the start. Without the macro mechanic, Zerg macro becomes way too easy. I was watching MC play on a brand new account and wrecking lower level players yesterday. It was interesting to see just how little stuff his platinum league P and T opponents had. Then he played a platinum Zerg and the guy had like twice as much stuff as the P/T players he had played just moments before.
You are really comparing MC to platinum leage players? Autoinject is sure OP then.
Did you read my post? It wasn't MC, who was playing Zerg, it was the other guy.
Edit: and that other guy had much, much, much more stuff, than plat P/T players MC had played before.
Oh ok I misread, one guy on a beta server who was plat who he do know nothing else about had way more stuff than other plat players. Now even I think its OP </sarcasm>
You are right, it's best to automate the mechanically most demanding part of Z macro, while also automating the least demanding parts of P/T macro and pretend that it doesn't defy logic.
It's possible to introduce other game mechanics that require fast and accurate user input other than injects and make them more important for zerg. I.e. creep spread, overlord placement and things that Protoss/Terran don't have that are already pretty important in HotS.
you're talking about map control and every race has that, zerg just has the cheapest one, let's face it, zerg is currently way easier everything-wise than its protoss and terran counterparts
On September 12 2015 06:09 mishimaBeef wrote: Kind of a catch-22 isn't it.
You can't predict exactly how initial design decisions will play out in an established e-sports scene.
You can't change design after the e-sports scene establishes itself around the initial design decisions.
¯\_(-_-)_/¯
That's why game designers are taught to be careful how much they change a game based upon complaints. For example, Sakurai once said something along the lines of if he actually listened to the suggestions of players, teh game would be garbage that would only cater to a few characters and/or playstyles.
Designers are supposed to stick by their intended design goals. Feedback is great to see how they are doing along the line with accomplishing those goals. But feedback should only matter if it is relevant to the actual intended design goal. The design itself may change, but the design goals should not change...
Also in game design, it is known that you can not please everyone. But they are trying to please everyone... That is typically a recipe for disaster...
Problem here is now that Blizzard is having second guesses if they should continue creating the best design for this game, or bend to complaints in user feedback.
Successful game designers all know the answer. A change in design goals is extremely alarming. And those who are not game designers only need look at history to see how changing games due to complaints rather than intended design decisions leads to disaster.
I just hope Blizzard actually does what is best for the game... Rather than try to appease everyone. Since this is the final expansion, this decision is going to make or break the future of SC2...
It seems that Blizzard wants to take the 'safe bet' and only tweak the macro mechanics so as not to disturb the established e-sports scene. I guess removing or automating macro mechanics will cause a greater stir in the e-sports scene and can be seen as the 'risky bet'.
On September 12 2015 06:09 mishimaBeef wrote: Kind of a catch-22 isn't it.
You can't predict exactly how initial design decisions will play out in an established e-sports scene.
You can't change design after the e-sports scene establishes itself around the initial design decisions.
¯\_(-_-)_/¯
That's why game designers are taught to be careful how much they change a game based upon complaints. For example, Sakurai once said something along the lines of if he actually listened to the suggestions of players, teh game would be garbage that would only cater to a few characters and/or playstyles.
Designers are supposed to stick by their intended design goals. Feedback is great to see how they are doing along the line with accomplishing those goals. But feedback should only matter if it is relevant to the actual intended design goal. The design itself may change, but the design goals should not change...
Also in game design, it is known that you can not please everyone. But they are trying to please everyone... That is typically a recipe for disaster...
Problem here is now that Blizzard is having second guesses if they should continue creating the best design for this game, or bend to complaints in user feedback.
Successful game designers all know the answer. A change in design goals is extremely alarming. And those who are not game designers only need look at history to see how changing games due to complaints rather than intended design decisions leads to disaster.
I just hope Blizzard actually does what is best for the game... Rather than try to appease everyone. Since this is the final expansion, this decision is going to make or break the future of SC2...
then again, look at the first release of Final Fantasy 14, and then they re did the game from ground up and it's now a massive success
On September 12 2015 06:21 Spyridon wrote: Problem here is now that Blizzard is having second guesses if they should continue creating the best design for this game, or bend to complaints in user feedback.
Successful game designers all know the answer. A change in design goals is extremely alarming. And those who are not game designers only need look at history to see how changing games due to complaints rather than intended design decisions leads to disaster.
we all know what that cynical old man Rob Pardo would do. he's sorta the stone cold steve austen of game designers.
DISCLAIMER: big Pardo fan boy here
On September 12 2015 06:21 Spyridon wrote: I just hope Blizzard actually does what is best for the game... Rather than try to appease everyone. Since this is the final expansion, this decision is going to make or break the future of SC2...
the future of SC2 is the same future as every other APM-instense PC-centric RTS game. There is nothing Blizzard can do to alter its fate... they can only delay the inevitable.
On September 12 2015 06:09 mishimaBeef wrote: Kind of a catch-22 isn't it.
You can't predict exactly how initial design decisions will play out in an established e-sports scene.
You can't change design after the e-sports scene establishes itself around the initial design decisions.
¯\_(-_-)_/¯
That's why game designers are taught to be careful how much they change a game based upon complaints. For example, Sakurai once said something along the lines of if he actually listened to the suggestions of players, teh game would be garbage that would only cater to a few characters and/or playstyles.
Designers are supposed to stick by their intended design goals. Feedback is great to see how they are doing along the line with accomplishing those goals. But feedback should only matter if it is relevant to the actual intended design goal. The design itself may change, but the design goals should not change...
Also in game design, it is known that you can not please everyone. But they are trying to please everyone... That is typically a recipe for disaster...
Problem here is now that Blizzard is having second guesses if they should continue creating the best design for this game, or bend to complaints in user feedback.
Successful game designers all know the answer. A change in design goals is extremely alarming. And those who are not game designers only need look at history to see how changing games due to complaints rather than intended design decisions leads to disaster.
I just hope Blizzard actually does what is best for the game... Rather than try to appease everyone. Since this is the final expansion, this decision is going to make or break the future of SC2...
then again, look at the first release of Final Fantasy 14, and then they re did the game from ground up and it's now a massive success
Agreed. FF is a great example actually...
What was the reason for that? The initial design goals were poor, the feedback for the game experience was the same.
They re-did their design from the ground up. Then once FF14 re-released and was a success, they stuck with the successful design.
Contrast that to WoL and HotS. WoL had lukewarm reception. Much resistance. Then HotS hugely under-performed in comparison. Now is their 3rd attempt, and their considering going back to the same design that underperformed?
When coming up with the design for LotV, the design decisions should have been made and set. All through beta they did have some design goals: To speed the game up, more action, more micro, removing redundancy. But now... a couple months before release, they should NOT be changing design decisions, or second guessing themselves!
Back to the FF14 example: What do you think would have happened if 1 month before the FF14 re-release, they second guessed themselves, and implemented the vanilla FF14 mechanics?
On September 12 2015 06:21 Spyridon wrote: I just hope Blizzard actually does what is best for the game... Rather than try to appease everyone. Since this is the final expansion, this decision is going to make or break the future of SC2...
the future of SC2 is the same future as every other APM-instense PC-centric RTS game. There is nothing Blizzard can do to alter its fate... they can only delay the inevitable.
RTS's may be falling off.
But what Blizzard can do, is try to make SC2 the best RTS possible, and the way to do that is to try to make the best design decisions possible. Second guessing their design goals they had all through the beta, and reverting to mechanics they ADMIT are not as good design, is NOT the way to do that!
Macro is back! I am so so so happy. I am totally reinvigorated for LOTV, now. Thank you Blizzard.
So now we have the full force macro mechanics of HOTS even though we're taking 7-10 minute 4'th bases every game. Are we playing starcraft of a 5-minutes-max macrofest where it's not worth it to control any unit because you can just make 30 more of them if you lose 10 while macroing?
I'm @ top 1% mmr on archon and we're still crushing the majority of people with macro, mechanics and multitasking WITHOUT macro stuff in the game. TWO master level opponents can't keep up with that.
Very rarely are games decided by tactics or micro - and people want supply and economy to explode FASTER than it already does? The standard game profile is "well we harassed and expanded earlier and then we won because we were 50 supply up" already. Why make that worse?
Removing macro mechanics doesn't make that much sense in WOL-HOTS - maybe reducing their relevance some. But in LOTV it's a completely different game when your first real expansion is your third base.
Add scourges to counter air.
Why? Viper is the best anti-air unit in the game and zerg doesn't have a particular problem against air in the first 4-7 minutes of the game.
for both complaints i am not even sure that you guys are playing LOTV, there are so many people in HOTS mindset
Zerg Spawn Larva This mechanic is the most difficult because, design-wise, the current version is arguably better, however players are losing a skill they’ve been practicing for years, which isn't ideal. Internally, we’re testing a different version for Zerg. We currently have autocast removed, but it is possible to stack Spawn Larva on a Hatchery. E.g. I can cast Spawn Larva three times on the same Hatchery at the same time, and each one will pop one after another. This might be closer to what we’re looking for: For a top-end pro player to gain the maximum effect of Spawn Larva, he’ll need to be as precise with the casts as he needs to be in HotS, but lower-level players who aren’t close to mastering this technique will have a much easier time with this version.
Because this is such a major change, we’ve been going through major iterations during the beta. We’d like to thank you guys once again for the continued discussions, playtesting, and feedback in this area. This really gives a good example of how we iterate and explore various things internally and it’s cool having everyone be a part of this.Please try to focus your feedback on which version is best for the game, and let us know so that we can make a good decision.
Interesting. I do agree that more testing is better, so yeah; bring on the stacking. I was kinda torn between liking the autocast and hating it, and after having played with it i tended to dislike more than enjoy so lets see how the stacking works; if this will satisfy both newbies with less macro requirements and pros with needing to be precise, then this is definitely a better solution than the autocast.
I like the fact that these community updates are now done so often, and i like that they actually have NOT given up on testing big macro changes.
Very happy with this update, as weird as everything sounds. Embracing change is good
On September 12 2015 02:01 Ingvar wrote: I'll just quote Lalush from the other thread because it is one of the best takes on macro boosters I have read in a while.
On September 11 2015 21:18 LaLuSh wrote: Removing macro mechanics isn't going to make a dent in how many casuals play SC2. If you make a list of the barriers that keep people from getting into 1v1 multiplayer RTS, you can go on for 2 pages listing genre specific barriers before you get to anything directly design related.
Do you think most people know what a-move is? Do you think most people can box select effortlessly and accurately their first times playing an RTS? Do you think most people know they can use shift or control to select multiple buildings or box-select-add more units as opposed to just re-boxselecting every. single. time. ? Do you think most people know to use building hotkeys? Would you like to play a game where you had to repeat the same clicking pattern 300 times every game to repeat the same building action? What about using regular assignable hotkeys as opposed to re-boxselecting everything every single time? How many people have ever played a game where they had to regularly screen switch and keep their attention split between different locations on a map? You can play and enjoy a MOBA without ever screen switching, but can you enjoy an RTS without being comfortable at screen-switching?
I could list a million of those and they are all more relevant and bigger barriers than any of the bullshit design decisions we discuss in here. If you are capable in the above and the basics of RTS, I only then do you get to the point where any of this matters.
We act like tweaking macro mechanics matters for Starcraft 2's broader casual accessability. No, it only matters for those who are already comfortable with the RTS genre but aren't very good at the game. It matters in that it feeds into their delusion, where they believe inside each and every one of them resides a latent but repressed strategical genious. The only reason this genious hasn't emerged, of course, is because the button mashing nature of the game. This is also their main stated reason of hating the game.
So we reduce some clicks here, add some "meaningful" clicks there. The casuals find they still suck. And in the end of this exercise I'm going to bet we haven't changed the accessability of Starcraft in any measurable way whatsoever.
Please accept that you can't hit injects reliably (as I have accepted) and enjoy the game at your level. It is just for fun after all.
I almost didn't post this, but after reading that comment, I feel I must reply with another perspective that addresses all ranges of players of RTS games.
Subject: Game Lifetime Truths - How to make a video game live longer: Make picking up an Alt Race a possibility.
I think everybody wants LotV to be successful and being the last installment, to really push SC2 closer to perfection. This post will be thoughts on what fans, maybe even pros, will need to consider as time goes on with their beloved Starcraft.
1. The older you get, the less time you will have to play a game. Unless you are a pro with no family, this is universally true 99.999% of the time. Would you like to continue to enjoy playing Starcraft 2, 3, 5 years from now? More?
2. The longer you play a game, the higher chance that you will get burned out and want some change.
3. A great change of pace is to pick up a new alt race in an RTS or a new character in a fighting game. This also makes you better at the game (Korean pros do it in SC2).
4. Once you are at a high enough level with your main, picking an Alt is only tolerable if learning the Alt takes a few months at most, maybe 3-4 months max to be at least competent and semi-close to your old level, assuming other skills transfer. Years to relearn is not acceptable.
5. Nobody wants to be at level 10 with their main and then have to play level 2 and 3 guys for 9+ months because they need xxxxx hours to be competent with something critical like basic macro mechanics (advanced macro and multitasking can come with time, you understand me I hope). The level 2 and 3 guys don't want to deal with you either, because they don't understand the parts of the game that you do. Nobody is satisfied.
6. Street Fighter 4 was a great example of this at the pro level. One of the best in the world, Daigo, used to only play one main and never an alt (usually Ryu) for years and years. Then SF4 came around, and while he remained at the top most of the time, the game was easier to master than older versions of Street Fighter. Some people were afraid the game was too easy, but the best guys were still the best. He was able to pick up an alt here and there, and eventually switched to a similar but different character.
Making macro mechanics less difficult or critical to winning is the way to succeed here. Make the game fun to pick up an alt race, and the game lives twice as long, provides twice as much enjoyment, and even gives insight into the other race's trials and tribulations which creates a better community.
Actually, separate MMR for your chosen alt races would do more for me in that regards. I enjoy that learning another race is completely refreshing.
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
No one had a problem with the macro mechanics until DK had the brilliant idea of fucking around with them, please stop saying people were begging for them to change.
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
That first bit, don't give two shits about. He-said she-said bullshit.
That last bit, I just disagree with. But keep in mind this caveat: I really only play Archon Mode, so it's a different game. In some ways, AM really enhances the mechanics and problems. Removing Spawn Larva and CB was double-horrible for Terran. Horrible. Unplayable in non-mirror matchups. This put up against the most ridiculous error: automated Spawn Larva. But I disagree that these three abilities are somehow game-defining, game-making, or game-breaking.
Legacy of the Void is already significantly more different than HotS, than Hots was from WoL. They need to listen to the community less, imo, focus on their work, and their designs. There is no objective "better" in your statement, in the way it is being discussed here. Unless we can define better with benchmarking metrics: increased sales, increased viewership, increased active playerbase, etc ...
The only thing I didn't like about the new macro mechanics was Zerg auto-injects, and they managed to figure out something worse, queuable injects, hahaha. Really don't know what to think anymore. Either keep the HotS system, or just remove everything completely, I wouldn't go for half measures.
I agree, especially since new chrono is way worse both as a mechanic and how it feels to use as a player.
It's incredibly awkward to cast, adding cooldown just makes that worse. More awkward than previous mechanic.
It's also something that you just have like three of them running for most of the game, it's a 20% speedup so it's not all that notable. Your 27 second adept finishes 4 seconds earlier - it's not powerful enough to give meaningful change to any production tactic, yet it forces blizzard to keep long as hell build times, production times, research times all over the race which make it a pain to play because this mechanic is giving a consistent fairly hidden power boost in a way that nobody on either side cares about.
Please make it relevant and fun to use (WOL+HOTS had that) or just remove entirely and balance protoss to be strong without it existing.
Mules back is a bit of a slap in the face too; I've come to realise in the last hundred games that most of my annoyance when playing against terran is caused by such a simple mechanic. Harassment not being as much as it should, crazy all-ins being possible. Staying ahead in economy while down a base for the entire game - it's just not that fun.
I get the feeling that a lot of terrans would rather have stronger units and such rather than not being able to compete without asymmetric imbalance (weak race buffed by imbalanced economy boosters to the point of being strong again)
New mule is good in some ways - you can harass and pick them off with the autocast - but people can probably manually cast them onto smarter places. When HOTS mule returns, they almost certainly won't be dropping them haphazardly where i can kill them when they have 2-3 mineral lines to choose from the whole game.
On September 12 2015 06:09 mishimaBeef wrote: Kind of a catch-22 isn't it.
You can't predict exactly how initial design decisions will play out in an established e-sports scene.
You can't change design after the e-sports scene establishes itself around the initial design decisions.
¯\_(-_-)_/¯
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.
On September 12 2015 09:27 ZenithM wrote: The only thing I didn't like about the new macro mechanics was Zerg auto-injects, and they managed to figure out something worse, queuable injects, hahaha. Really don't know what to think anymore. Either keep the HotS system, or just remove everything completely, I wouldn't go for half measures.
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..
Dota 2 is a good example, it kills it's meta about once per year.
League has a period every off-season where they let everything go to shit and make serious redesigns, for sc2 that period has been in the betas - but that is quite highly limited and does not allow for future design changes.
Having 2-3 months a year to make serious changes and iterate on them every week would be great, IMO.
On September 12 2015 09:27 ZenithM wrote: The only thing I didn't like about the new macro mechanics was Zerg auto-injects, and they managed to figure out something worse, queuable injects, hahaha. Really don't know what to think anymore. Either keep the HotS system, or just remove everything completely, I wouldn't go for half measures.
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 don't know what is confusing about what I said. I said that their new Zerg mechanics suck, basically, that's not 2 changes. I'd rather have them revert the Zerg changes, and I really don't see why they wouldn't revert Terran and Protoss changes as well in that case (it wouldn't make sense for them to remove only 2 out of 3 macro mechanics).
I'm confused about what they're going for though, and it seems like they are too (50/50 internal team split opinion thing).
On September 12 2015 06:09 mishimaBeef wrote: Kind of a catch-22 isn't it.
You can't predict exactly how initial design decisions will play out in an established e-sports scene.
You can't change design after the e-sports scene establishes itself around the initial design decisions.
¯\_(-_-)_/¯
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.
On September 12 2015 09:27 ZenithM wrote: The only thing I didn't like about the new macro mechanics was Zerg auto-injects, and they managed to figure out something worse, queuable injects, hahaha. Really don't know what to think anymore. Either keep the HotS system, or just remove everything completely, I wouldn't go for half measures.
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..
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 06:09 mishimaBeef wrote: Kind of a catch-22 isn't it.
You can't predict exactly how initial design decisions will play out in an established e-sports scene.
You can't change design after the e-sports scene establishes itself around the initial design decisions.
¯\_(-_-)_/¯
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.
On September 12 2015 09:27 ZenithM wrote: The only thing I didn't like about the new macro mechanics was Zerg auto-injects, and they managed to figure out something worse, queuable injects, hahaha. Really don't know what to think anymore. Either keep the HotS system, or just remove everything completely, I wouldn't go for half measures.
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..
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.
Icefrog is unique among designers and balancers. He's had an entire team with him since he took over for Dota1 a decade ago. He has a complete vision of what he wants Dota to be and knows what he wants it to be.
There is no one even comparable to him and what he brings to his game in any esport except Ono for street fighter
On September 12 2015 11:10 nottapro wrote: Remove inject, mules and chrono completely. Re-balance and don't look back.
It would have to be a redesign, not rebalance.
I think he meant to remove them and then balance around that
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.
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.
I really like the suggested spawn larva change. It should make everyone happy:
1. It makes zerg macro more forgiving for newer players who can't inject well yet.
2. It rewards players who can inject well.
3. In the late game where there is more going on and injects are more likely to be missed, it helps zerg macro still be equal in difficulty to the other races (as opposed to more demanding). However, as in #2, players who inject better will still be rewarded all game long.
4. It makes spawn larva more equal in terms of forgiveness to the other races. Sure, zergs will still lose some games from missing an inject. But now there would be a way to recover that lost larva, similar to how terrans can drop multiple mules and protoss' can chrono multiple things simultaneously or in succession if they forget. The way HotS is, I don't think anyone would argue against the fact that spawn larva is significantly less forgiving then any of the other race's macro mechanics.
I was pretty distraught when I first heard about autocast spawn larva. This seems like a significantly better idea, IMO :-).
On September 12 2015 11:10 nottapro wrote: Remove inject, mules and chrono completely. Re-balance and don't look back.
It would have to be a redesign, not rebalance.
I think he meant to remove them and then balance around that
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.
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.
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 11:10 nottapro wrote: Remove inject, mules and chrono completely. Re-balance and don't look back.
It would have to be a redesign, not rebalance.
I think he meant to remove them and then balance around that
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.
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.
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.
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 14:16 CheddarToss wrote: The new chrono is worse than the old one, because it doesn't speed up unit production, only probe production and tech.
It speeds up unit production too, it just hardly affects it. Four seconds off a 27 second adept
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.
It speeds up unit production too, it just hardly affects it. Four seconds off a 27 second adept
Well it does a bit in the early game, when you have a very low number of gates. But it isn't as useful all game long as the old chrono was, where you could bank energy and chrono a lot of gates. In mid game, with ~3 nexi on average, you can only chrono 3 gates now and chances are that you will have around 8 gates.
On September 12 2015 15:37 Cyro wrote: 8 is on the low side for ~65 probe economy :D
Yes, for gate heavy builds, but protoss players seem to integrate a lot of additional tech into their builds in LotV. For example it isn't unusual to see 3 stargates vs zerg. In any case, the new chrono doesn't offer the same level of flexibility the old one does.
On September 12 2015 11:10 nottapro wrote: Remove inject, mules and chrono completely. Re-balance and don't look back.
It would have to be a redesign, not rebalance.
I think he meant to remove them and then balance around that
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.
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.
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.
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!
There are three races/six matchups to think about and I talk about this problem in the exact same post
Its also not about balance, its about design. Why would you go for marines when your other units are most cost effective, why go for lings if your other units are cost effective.
If you arent thinking holistically about the entire problem and how one change effects the entire game, then whats the point?
I thought the whole point was just to dampen the effect of macro mechanics to slow down the pace of the game a bit? Just lower the larva count of inject / income of a mule / time chrono lasts by 33%-50%...
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.
Well for most people who play sc2, the definition of bio being viable is can i produce pure MMMM and win!?!?!? Which is exactly why the mechanics were reverted back to normal. Terran QQ'd all day and apparently blizzard couldn't handle it.
You wrote this big post to make everything sound so damn complicated(with perfect micro, 2 marines beat 1 zealot all day every day... its melee vs ranged). Left the same my bio army will still kill the same protoss army, I just need to be more efficient because I can't produce as much as I used to, BUT NEITHER CAN THE PROTOSS!(easy to balance if its an issue). Even though many sc2 fans hate it, look to broodwar. Bio was viable in tvz due to the vessel and the same could be done for sc2. In sc2 Tanks can handle lurkers. Liberators, mines, and thors are all in the game for some reason to deal with mutas. And vikings smash corruptors.
I could go through this for each race and give you specific numbers if that is what you want. I'm not saying my numbers would be perfect, but it is no where near as hard as you make it out to be. Tweaking unit numbers is much easier than doing whatever the hell they are doing with macro mechanics and then balancing everything from there.
The only part that I was happy when reading was the section about maps. I truly hope blizzard follows through and we no longer have free 3 bases on every single map until the end of time.
Close to release and they havent a clue what to do, band aid fixes for a flawed design which we all knew from the start. Warp gate, mules, injects, force fields etc.
Sc2 is paying a price for a design team, which put gimmicks ahead of core game play from the start. They may as well leave in the the 3 macro mechanics we have had for 5 years and concentrate on the actual units in the game.
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
I don't think that us whining (because I was part of those who completely dislike it) had much impact, but TLO and DRG calling it boring, professional players in Catz show calling it too easy and thus unfair, that must had an impact.
On September 12 2015 16:18 Ouija wrote: Even though many sc2 fans hate it, look to broodwar. Bio was viable in tvz due to the vessel and the same could be done for sc2. In sc2 Tanks can handle lurkers. Liberators, mines, and thors are all in the game for some reason to deal with mutas. And vikings smash corruptors.
Bio in BW was viable only vs Zerg and only because BW Zerg worked completely different than any race in SC2, relying mostly on very high cost effectiveness of tech units to make up for their relatively weak early game compared to Terran, because of being larva starved amongst other things, Zerg in SC2 relies on the ability of making a ton of units that work only in very high numbers and their superior economy (BW Zerg was actually down on workers and had to expand faster to have even economy vs Terran [which again is a problem with SC2 mining and why Zerg needs to be able to make a lot of drones]). Baneling is the prime example of a unit that is not very good in low numbers because it can be focused down by a competent player. If you have 30 of them, some will connect no matter what. Baneling is also one of the reasons why SC2 zerglings can remain very weak compared to their SC2 counterparts. I like that you mention the need of support from mech units for bio to contest some of the Zerg units, because the same thing happens in BW. You start adding tanks to shell out lurkers and at some point you just do a mech switch and go full mech which gives you a fighting chance vs defilers with their plague and DS. I'd like to say that in SC2 you wouldn't ever see bio if mech was stronger, because mech openings in SC2 are much more secure (actually going mech and getting that early tank is considered significantly safer than most bio builds) than in BW where basically most mech openings would die to a committed mutalisk pressure (that again, was very common because Zerg relied on very strong mutalisks and static defence to make up for not being able to produce enough lings to take bio head, killing them with harass and picking off stray units in the konga line).
Basically what I'm saying is that, BW Zerg's strength was their tech units (mutas, lurkers, defilers) and SC2 Zerg's strength is their ability to flood waves of cheap units, which makes the interaction in ZvT much different. BW Zerg had very strong lings that didn't have banes lagging behind that together with the strong mutas allowed you to gank on Terran units on the map. SC2 Zerg can't engage off creep because of their lower speed and banelings (which are the damage dealer vs bio) are much easier to kill then. BW Terran had to make dropships to drop and abuse the lack of mobility of Zerg, who constantly down in supply, dedicated most of his army in later stages to just defend the chokes and vantage points of the map, having a handful of lings to runby. SC2 Terran can drop all day every day and has a speed boost for easy escapes. And that's another problem for larva-starved SC2 Zerg, how do I make enough mutas to effectively shut down drops? I don't have larva or scourge.
A lot of these points might be exaggerated, but I think that you can't really compare BW and SC2 ZvT. And like stuchiu said, any change in 1 non-mirror, will affect another 1. But I'd be very keen to see your "number" tweaks!
On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote: Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money.
Agreed. I skipped HOTS as well due to the swarm host, widow mine, MSC, lack of zerg answer to forcefields, etc..
There is no way I'm buying LOTV if they don't make some major changes like removing the macro boosters, implementing the Hot mineral economy, implementing "depth of micro" fixes, pathing, etc..
On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote: Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money.
Agreed. I skipped HOTS as well due to the swarm host, widow mine, MSC, lack of zerg answer to forcefields, etc..
There is no way I'm buying LOTV if they don't make some major changes like removing the macro boosters, implementing the Hot mineral economy, implementing "depth of micro" fixes, pathing, etc..
Well I'm going to save you some time. They won't do Hot economy, and they will most probably have some macro mechanic. So you don't have to worry about buying the game and you can move on to another one. Try Dota, apparently from what I read here, it's a very well balanced/designed game. Just hope you like farming creep for 10 minutes.
On September 12 2015 11:10 nottapro wrote: Remove inject, mules and chrono completely. Re-balance and don't look back.
It would have to be a redesign, not rebalance.
I think he meant to remove them and then balance around that
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.
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.
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.
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!
There are three races/six matchups to think about and I talk about this problem in the exact same post
Its also not about balance, its about design. Why would you go for marines when your other units are most cost effective, why go for lings if your other units are cost effective.
If you arent thinking holistically about the entire problem and how one change effects the entire game, then whats the point?
The point I was kind of jokingly trying to make is that - despite the delicate balance - these things will probably largely sort themselves out as players adjust their play to match their (expected) income. Terrans will build more gas-heavy units (we saw this happening in the short time they were without mules), Zergs will make macro hatcheries to compensate for lack of larva.
And I should add that personally I am not for a complete removal of macro mechanics, but rather a ~50% reduction in effectiveness. This would hopefully mean that it is slightly more forgiving to spend some more time microing your units and that missing some macro beats while you are trying to damage your enemy's economy is not going to cost you the game if you can't do sufficient damage.
Not that the game won't require some rebalancing as the result of these changes, but the rebalance requirement will become evident after a month or two of gameplay and are not impossibly difficult to overcome. Still, a medivac full of marines will be capable of killing an equal amount of drones as it does today. And while the drop itself will be more valuable due to the fewer resources available to the Terran, the damage done to the economy can also be more significant as the Zerg will have to devote more of his fewer larva to rebuilding his drones.
The issues with Mules and SCV pulls could be changed by turning it into a stationary unit/building.
- Dropdown ability, but can only be dropped on mineral patches. - When dropped on a patch it will start mining, SCV's will need to pick up what it has mined. The pick-up cycle should be shorter than the normal SCV mining cycle. - Limited mineral cargo supply - Hovering but immobile. Unit can be lifted and dropped to other locations by Medivacs - Non-stackable - Limited life duration, patches that weren't picked up by SCV's will drop on the ground.
On September 12 2015 19:05 MaximilianKohler wrote:
On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote: Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money.
Agreed. I skipped HOTS as well due to the swarm host, widow mine, MSC, lack of zerg answer to forcefields, etc..
There is no way I'm buying LOTV if they don't make some major changes like removing the macro boosters, implementing the Hot mineral economy, implementing "depth of micro" fixes, pathing, etc..
Well I'm going to save you some time. They won't do Hot economy, and they will most probably have some macro mechanic. So you don't have to worry about buying the game and you can move on to another one. Try Dota, apparently from what I read here, it's a very well balanced/designed game. Just hope you like farming creep for 10 minutes.
Oooh the burn - you should play Ember Spirit in DotA
On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote: Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money.
I think that Blizzard, upon launch, should make the game F2P for a couple of weeks for multiplayer only. Then people who are concerned that they won't like it and will have wasted their money can try it without risk.
P.S. Whilst I am pissed at Blizz over much of this - best of luck finding a better RTS.
On September 12 2015 19:05 MaximilianKohler wrote:
On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote: Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money.
Agreed. I skipped HOTS as well due to the swarm host, widow mine, MSC, lack of zerg answer to forcefields, etc..
There is no way I'm buying LOTV if they don't make some major changes like removing the macro boosters, implementing the Hot mineral economy, implementing "depth of micro" fixes, pathing, etc..
Well I'm going to save you some time. They won't do Hot economy, and they will most probably have some macro mechanic. So you don't have to worry about buying the game and you can move on to another one. Try Dota, apparently from what I read here, it's a very well balanced/designed game. Just hope you like farming creep for 10 minutes.
I can't stand MOBAs. One of the things I hate about LOTV is them making it more like MOBAs.
On September 12 2015 11:10 nottapro wrote: Remove inject, mules and chrono completely. Re-balance and don't look back.
It would have to be a redesign, not rebalance.
I think he meant to remove them and then balance around that
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.
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.
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.
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!
There are three races/six matchups to think about and I talk about this problem in the exact same post
Its also not about balance, its about design. Why would you go for marines when your other units are most cost effective, why go for lings if your other units are cost effective.
If you arent thinking holistically about the entire problem and how one change effects the entire game, then whats the point?
Things can be rendered more or less cost effective with number tuning. I think you just make it sound more complicated in essence than it really is. Which isn't to say that it wouldn't require a huge amount of work, even if there is "just" number balancing taking place, of course.
I would also argue that nobody absolutely wants LotV to play exactly like HotS in term of unit interactions. It's fine if some unit interactions are lost/created in the process.
Starcraft is about attention, as long as there's always things to do=more than what a human being is capable of, we're good.
Then secondly, you want these attention things to have as much decision making as possible, so the better strategist can come out on top.
Then I think simplicity is what's most important.
Macro Boosters: if there's not enough to do, there should be Macro Boosters, they should involve decision making. If there's already enough to do, we should go for simplicity and simply remove them.
There are many other factors, like flow of the game and the feel of uniqueness they bring to each race.
On September 12 2015 16:18 Ouija wrote: Even though many sc2 fans hate it, look to broodwar. Bio was viable in tvz due to the vessel and the same could be done for sc2. In sc2 Tanks can handle lurkers. Liberators, mines, and thors are all in the game for some reason to deal with mutas. And vikings smash corruptors.
Bio in BW was viable only vs Zerg and only because BW Zerg worked completely different than any race in SC2, relying mostly on very high cost effectiveness of tech units to make up for their relatively weak early game compared to Terran, because of being larva starved amongst other things, Zerg in SC2 relies on the ability of making a ton of units that work only in very high numbers and their superior economy (BW Zerg was actually down on workers and had to expand faster to have even economy vs Terran [which again is a problem with SC2 mining and why Zerg needs to be able to make a lot of drones]). Baneling is the prime example of a unit that is not very good in low numbers because it can be focused down by a competent player. If you have 30 of them, some will connect no matter what. Baneling is also one of the reasons why SC2 zerglings can remain very weak compared to their SC2 counterparts. I like that you mention the need of support from mech units for bio to contest some of the Zerg units, because the same thing happens in BW. You start adding tanks to shell out lurkers and at some point you just do a mech switch and go full mech which gives you a fighting chance vs defilers with their plague and DS. I'd like to say that in SC2 you wouldn't ever see bio if mech was stronger, because mech openings in SC2 are much more secure (actually going mech and getting that early tank is considered significantly safer than most bio builds) than in BW where basically most mech openings would die to a committed mutalisk pressure (that again, was very common because Zerg relied on very strong mutalisks and static defence to make up for not being able to produce enough lings to take bio head, killing them with harass and picking off stray units in the konga line).
Basically what I'm saying is that, BW Zerg's strength was their tech units (mutas, lurkers, defilers) and SC2 Zerg's strength is their ability to flood waves of cheap units, which makes the interaction in ZvT much different. BW Zerg had very strong lings that didn't have banes lagging behind that together with the strong mutas allowed you to gank on Terran units on the map. SC2 Zerg can't engage off creep because of their lower speed and banelings (which are the damage dealer vs bio) are much easier to kill then. BW Terran had to make dropships to drop and abuse the lack of mobility of Zerg, who constantly down in supply, dedicated most of his army in later stages to just defend the chokes and vantage points of the map, having a handful of lings to runby. SC2 Terran can drop all day every day and has a speed boost for easy escapes. And that's another problem for larva-starved SC2 Zerg, how do I make enough mutas to effectively shut down drops? I don't have larva or scourge.
A lot of these points might be exaggerated, but I think that you can't really compare BW and SC2 ZvT. And like stuchiu said, any change in 1 non-mirror, will affect another 1. But I'd be very keen to see your "number" tweaks!
Bio in broodwar crushes protoss as well ( early on ). Reaver + Storm just hurt more in broodwar, because storm is stronger in broodwar due to stacking and players can dodge them easily in sc2 with better pathing.
The reason I pointed out all those units in sc2 is because many bio players don't want or don't think they should have to build them to deal with whatever they are fighting. its been pure MMMM all game every game for the longest time. I just wanted to point out that with the removal of the mechanics, terran still has all the tools they would need to defend whatever the other races are building.
I know that each change will have an affect on an unintended area, you just have to sit down a think about it. This is why many of blizzards changes focus on shit like warp gate research increased duration to 160 seconds or whatever. They choose this way because it should have less impact on all matchups compared to say buffing the stalkers damage.
The main reason that I was in favor of the removal of the macro mechanics, is for the simple fact that I think it would make the game easier to balance. Only a few units right now could be tweaked because they are stupidly strong, but it's hard when Blizzard still does not know what to do with the macro mechanics, and they keep changing it. You have to wait for this mess to die down and for them to stop making changes to it, to really get into balancing the units.
This is just horrible and I am really disappointed. I was so happy when they started the larva mechanics removal. And now this...with such a stupid argument.
To be honest, it's all about the larva inject mechanism and probably chronoboost. MULE is totally different as it doesn't require much skill and is way more forgiving than the others.
I was so happy that the players had much more time executing and harrassing and didn't need to always stop fighting (retreating their armies/or shortly leaving them uncontrolled) in order to re-inject e.g.
In just a few hours, the release date of LotV will be announced.
Blizzard is rushing out LotV by year's end, without the balls to remove macro mechanics and implement the rebalancing that it requires, while the same old distortionary, inaccurate ranking system still remains.
On September 12 2015 16:18 Ouija wrote: Even though many sc2 fans hate it, look to broodwar. Bio was viable in tvz due to the vessel and the same could be done for sc2. In sc2 Tanks can handle lurkers. Liberators, mines, and thors are all in the game for some reason to deal with mutas. And vikings smash corruptors.
Bio in BW was viable only vs Zerg and only because BW Zerg worked completely different than any race in SC2, relying mostly on very high cost effectiveness of tech units to make up for their relatively weak early game compared to Terran, because of being larva starved amongst other things, Zerg in SC2 relies on the ability of making a ton of units that work only in very high numbers and their superior economy (BW Zerg was actually down on workers and had to expand faster to have even economy vs Terran [which again is a problem with SC2 mining and why Zerg needs to be able to make a lot of drones]). Baneling is the prime example of a unit that is not very good in low numbers because it can be focused down by a competent player. If you have 30 of them, some will connect no matter what. Baneling is also one of the reasons why SC2 zerglings can remain very weak compared to their SC2 counterparts. I like that you mention the need of support from mech units for bio to contest some of the Zerg units, because the same thing happens in BW. You start adding tanks to shell out lurkers and at some point you just do a mech switch and go full mech which gives you a fighting chance vs defilers with their plague and DS. I'd like to say that in SC2 you wouldn't ever see bio if mech was stronger, because mech openings in SC2 are much more secure (actually going mech and getting that early tank is considered significantly safer than most bio builds) than in BW where basically most mech openings would die to a committed mutalisk pressure (that again, was very common because Zerg relied on very strong mutalisks and static defence to make up for not being able to produce enough lings to take bio head, killing them with harass and picking off stray units in the konga line).
Basically what I'm saying is that, BW Zerg's strength was their tech units (mutas, lurkers, defilers) and SC2 Zerg's strength is their ability to flood waves of cheap units, which makes the interaction in ZvT much different. BW Zerg had very strong lings that didn't have banes lagging behind that together with the strong mutas allowed you to gank on Terran units on the map. SC2 Zerg can't engage off creep because of their lower speed and banelings (which are the damage dealer vs bio) are much easier to kill then. BW Terran had to make dropships to drop and abuse the lack of mobility of Zerg, who constantly down in supply, dedicated most of his army in later stages to just defend the chokes and vantage points of the map, having a handful of lings to runby. SC2 Terran can drop all day every day and has a speed boost for easy escapes. And that's another problem for larva-starved SC2 Zerg, how do I make enough mutas to effectively shut down drops? I don't have larva or scourge.
A lot of these points might be exaggerated, but I think that you can't really compare BW and SC2 ZvT. And like stuchiu said, any change in 1 non-mirror, will affect another 1. But I'd be very keen to see your "number" tweaks!
I didn't play much BW myself but from what you said I am kinda happy how starcraft 2 zerg fit better to the lore.
On September 11 2015 03:23 ffadicted wrote: RIP no macro mechanics... Removing them was the best thing that ever happened to sc2, and all we needed was some rebalancing... But blizzard too lazy, prob being pushed to release the game too early, and reverting everything back to HotS status.
So disappointed
Also, on the larva stack... Do they not realize people are just going to make a ton of queen and keep infinity stacking larva on the same hatch? How is that ever gonna work lmao... That cannot be balanced
The single best thing in fact!
I guess blizzard wants to lower polularity of SC2 by bringing back SCV pull all-in gameplay and all the other negative effects that macro boosters have on the game such as accelerating small advantages to make them huge and impossible to come back from.
Watched proleague finals earlier today and there was barely a single interesting game but just infinite boredom. I don't even care who wins these SCV pull games as it doesn't tell much about the class and level of players.
DK, how do you think your game can get any better and more appealing if you don't change anything of significance? I know for a fact that alot of players didn't even switch from SC:BW to SC2 back in the days for exactly the reason of it being only massing units, reaching 200/200 way too quickly and the metagame being so narrow that anything other than standard macro play and pure all-ining is getting punished heavily sooner or later. Now you got the chance to get things right and you should take it. Try a version without mules, queens giving 1 larva per inject (automated) and with low or no chronoboost and see what else is required to balance it out.
Larva stack is complete bullshit imo. Zergs should learn to manage larva well and not have infinite larva with a few queens in place. We don't need games that rush to 200/200 within 7 minutes but more lower number of unit interactions that are carefully microed. With macro boosters this is hardly possible. It is too easy to abuse your own timings once you get them. The pressure of macro is a too high burden for the metagames of SC2 to allow versatility, strategical creativity and cleverness. Small advantages in macro get accelerated with the boosters to a point where it is hard or impossible to come back for the opponent. This makes ppl quit the game: Repetitive non strategical macro boosting in every game without much strategical choice and barely ways to come back out of a disadvantage against the accelerated & boosted macro of your opponent.
On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote: Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money.
This is for sure the only viable option if things stay as they are. I can't see myself playing or watching any more SC2 games that are only about boosting macro and once one player gets into a situation of 2 mules vs. 3 mules or 3 mules vs. 4 mules he can be put on a timer to lose by default for not being able to keep up with the accelerated boosted macro of his opponent. It makes ppl only play the safest possible way, not risking or committing anything and if so then going full all-in only. It is like playing poker on all-in/fold mode. Low skill ceiling. Don't listen to misguided pros/wannabe pros that believe the macro mechanics enlarge the skill ceiling of the game. Overall the opposite is true..
On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote: Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money.
This is for sure the only viable option if things stay as they are. I can't see myself playing or watching any more SC2 games that are only about boosting macro and once one player gets into a situation of 2 mules vs. 3 mules or 3 mules vs. 4 mules he can be put on a timer to lose by default for not being able to keep up with the accelerated boosted macro of his opponent. It makes ppl only play the safest possible way, not risking or committing anything and if so then going full all-in only. It is like playing poker on all-in/fold mode. Low skill ceiling. Don't listen to misguided pros/wannabe pros that believe the macro mechanics enlarge the skill ceiling of the game. Overall the opposite is true..
I'm so glad I'm reading this forum.
Staying up to date on the "video game buying meta" is so important when I'm deciding what to spend my money on. I try lots of buying strats, and sometimes it's hard to tell what works.
I was curious about "buying LOTV strategy," and it has been working well for me.
Now that I'm reading that "Not buying it," is the "only viable option," I'm wondering why "buying it" has been working so well for me :/
Maybe I've been putting it against many other bad games, so it's an easy win. Clearly though, doing things outside of the meta is just not viable. I need to be in the meta and only do the "viable" things, but sometimes the "not viable" works really well. But I must stay viable, but then the not viable can be so fun, but it isn't viable. I wish LOTV was a viable :/ but I think maybe the not viable is actually viable... Do you understand?
Well there are no real alternatives therefore we all probably gonna buy it. But that doesn't give any information about how long ppl are going to stay and have fun with the game.
If you don't understand what I say about the meta its your problem not mine. Just try to remember how many times on streams you hear that someone is put on a timer for this or that reason. If small disadvantages already put you on a timer due to boosted macro that makes little advantages weigh higher than they should the game gets boring to me. You are free to think what you like tho, I am stating my opinion.
Archons could use a buff/change. I would give it a passive that creates a storm when it dies but double aoe and duration. Would make it alot more interesting and useful than what it is now. For example when a Protoss army is retreating, leave a Archon at a ramp to zone out the opponent.
On September 14 2015 07:47 Klowney wrote: Archons could use a buff/change. I would give it a passive that creates a storm when it dies but double aoe and duration. Would make it alot more interesting and useful than what it is now. For example when a Protoss army is retreating, leave a Archon at a ramp to zone out the opponent.
This isn't MOBA or Diablo 2 though. You can already do that with forcefields but I don't know how viable they're in LotV after the last few months I've not played it.
On September 14 2015 07:47 Klowney wrote: Archons could use a buff/change. I would give it a passive that creates a storm when it dies but double aoe and duration. Would make it alot more interesting and useful than what it is now. For example when a Protoss army is retreating, leave a Archon at a ramp to zone out the opponent.
This isn't MOBA or Diablo 2 though. You can already do that with forcefields but I don't know how viable they're in LotV after the last few months I've not played it.
Forcefields are barely used. Some useful early game while expanding but relatively useless pvp vs adept, relatively useless past the early game against zerg and i don't see much niche to abuse them vs terran
On September 14 2015 06:55 LSN wrote: Well there are no real alternatives therefore we all probably gonna buy it. But that doesn't give any information about how long ppl are going to stay and have fun with the game.
If you don't understand what I say about the meta its your problem not mine. Just try to remember how many times on streams you hear that someone is put on a timer for this or that reason. If small disadvantages already put you on a timer due to boosted macro that makes little advantages weigh higher than they should the game gets boring to me. You are free to think what you like tho, I am stating my opinion.
On September 12 2015 19:05 MaximilianKohler wrote:
On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote: Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money.
Agreed. I skipped HOTS as well due to the swarm host, widow mine, MSC, lack of zerg answer to forcefields, etc..
There is no way I'm buying LOTV if they don't make some major changes like removing the macro boosters, implementing the Hot mineral economy, implementing "depth of micro" fixes, pathing, etc..
Well I'm going to save you some time. They won't do Hot economy, and they will most probably have some macro mechanic. So you don't have to worry about buying the game and you can move on to another one. Try Dota, apparently from what I read here, it's a very well balanced/designed game. Just hope you like farming creep for 10 minutes.
I can't stand MOBAs. One of the things I hate about LOTV is them making it more like MOBAs.
Adepts are so ridiculous right now, I'm amazed by the fact that they think they are ok, the only reason terran is doing ok right now are liberators but as soon as they nerf liberators terrans are going to get shit on by adepts, warp prism and pylons (lol)
On September 14 2015 11:24 Lexender wrote: Adepts are so ridiculous right now, I'm amazed by the fact that they think they are ok, the only reason terran is doing ok right now are liberators but as soon as they nerf liberators terrans are going to get shit on by adepts, warp prism and pylons (lol)
Adepts are not even that great past the early game, They're strong in low number but they're fat, have only 5 range and scale poorly with upgrades. They can't fight stimmed bio very well unless it's low numbers vs low numbers - people tend to build chargelots, templar and disruptors a lot past the early game instead.
The being fat thing is quite important because only a small fraction of them can fire if you make a lot of them without a great concave/flank and you can't stutter step forwards into stimmed bio because that will help the terran army attack more than it will help your army
On September 14 2015 11:24 Lexender wrote: Adepts are so ridiculous right now, I'm amazed by the fact that they think they are ok, the only reason terran is doing ok right now are liberators but as soon as they nerf liberators terrans are going to get shit on by adepts, warp prism and pylons (lol)
Adepts are not even that great past the early game, They're strong in low number but they're fat, have only 5 range and scale poorly with upgrades. They can't fight stimmed bio very well unless it's low numbers vs low numbers - people tend to build chargelots, templar and disruptors a lot past the early game instead.
The being fat thing is quite important because only a small fraction of them can fire if you make a lot of them without a great concave/flank and you can't stutter step forwards into stimmed bio because that will help the terran army attack more than it will help your army
Pro players negate these adept problems in the midgame by moving the shades on top of your army, negating any micro that you can do and assuring that all adepts can shoot.
On September 14 2015 11:24 Lexender wrote: Adepts are so ridiculous right now, I'm amazed by the fact that they think they are ok, the only reason terran is doing ok right now are liberators but as soon as they nerf liberators terrans are going to get shit on by adepts, warp prism and pylons (lol)
Adepts are not even that great past the early game, They're strong in low number but they're fat, have only 5 range and scale poorly with upgrades. They can't fight stimmed bio very well unless it's low numbers vs low numbers - people tend to build chargelots, templar and disruptors a lot past the early game instead.
The being fat thing is quite important because only a small fraction of them can fire if you make a lot of them without a great concave/flank and you can't stutter step forwards into stimmed bio because that will help the terran army attack more than it will help your army
Pro players negate these adept problems in the midgame by moving the shades on top of your army, negating any micro that you can do and assuring that all adepts can shoot.
That's not a major problem when you have stim, medivacs (and/or other support) and 100+ supply which isn't that hard to reach considering the insane economy at the moment.
Just don't go poking around with your unsupported bio army and get yourself into a bad position.
Anything starport makes it a pain in the ass for toss to use super-adept-heavy armies - it's not that hard for terrans to make some medivacs and liberators. They're also EXTREMELY vulnerable to ghosts as EMP takes 74% of their health and ghosts deal bonus damage to light.
Straight unsupported bio just doesn't work as well in legacy but bio support is stronger than ever - MMMGL is extremely strong. Just watch pro level PvT (huk is streaming ATM) if you don't believe that comp is any good
EGHuK: pVt EGHuK: so impossible EGHuK: right now.. Neaphilim: @EGHuK what do you think of carriers ? EGHuK: carriers are ok EGHuK: but right now EGHuK: there is no answer EGHuK: PvT EGHuK: terran will get nerfed for sure EGHuK: mules right now are insane EGHuK: betterthen hots mules even
First of all, I still think the Economy needs focus while we still have a chance. I understand if many have given up on this, but I won't until the game is released. Mining out bases faster.. what I've noticed, is that this doesn't spread out the battlefield. It requires expanding instead of promoting it, and the income rate plus workers/base doesn't change.
It's not too late to reconsider this direction, which may have a beneficial effect on the game. Think about what removing 2 patches/base would do to the game.. it would reduce the mineral income rate when fully saturated, and require less workers per base. It would also still promote faster expanding, even beyond 3 bases. I've brought this up before and it gets disregarded as being too similar to FRB models.. however, I am seriously trying to ask us to consider that this precise model could work better than what we have now.
Here's why I hope we could try to increase the 6 patches per base to 1600 minerals each. Staying on bases a little longer could become a more interesting dynamic if given the chance to get tested.. expanding will be done once players realize they want to keep making workers, or get a faster income rate.
Losing half of the income rate after mining out half of a base just feels unnatural, and seems like it could confuse a lot of players of previous games upon release. Please consider that they won't notice a difference until it's too late, and even explaining this in a tutorial will still mean many players won't get it.
Beyond that, mining out bases faster means moving onto the next base faster, rather than spreading out bases. If you don't let players sit at a base as long as they did before, they won't spread out.. they'll just move on faster. Reducing the amount of patches per base makes players desire expanding even faster than now.. to make use of workers and get a better income rate. The saturated income rate right now is a little too high on the mineral side, and this could help to even that out.
I know you've heard this before, but even if you don't like to consider alternatives just think of the benefits that could arise, and whether or not it'd be more fun. I see a 6-patch-per-base economy being the best way to get games to play out more like they did in Brood War. More spread out armies, less deathballs, less full saturation mineral rate, risk of losing 22 workers in a few seconds cut down to 18 instead, more room for mapmakers to create more base locations, etc.
Beyond that, macro mechanics are on the right track. Here's some ideas to arrive at a compromise, since I know Blizz is 50-50 on it at the moment. Chrono should activate right after Cyber Core is built. It should have a cooldown of 20 seconds before you can move it. It should still remain on a building until it is moved, but should provide the same efficiency boost it does now for about 10 seconds, then decrease in efficency after that to where it is now.
Terran MULEs should stay the same as before.. but only allow one MULE per mineral patch. Zerg Injects should remain similar as they were before, but allow a Zerg to pre-Spawn another round of Larvae before the current round has been spawned. This means they can queue it up one time during a cycle. I wouldn't mind trying it at 20 Energy instead, and only spawning 3 larvae instead of 4.
Adept upgrade should cut the duration of Psionic Transfer in half. This creates a lot more interesting micro situations in lategame. I've noticed most Protoss don't Transfer in larger battles, because it takes too long and it's actually better to just tank with them and move back. Replacing the Shield upgrade with a Psionic Transfer upgrade makes more sense from a lategame micro perspective, and makes them a little less tanky.
Liberator should do less damage.. vs both Ground and Air. However, they could automatically get AG mode once a Fusion Core is built. No upgrade required. The fact this unit can do Splash vs Air and target a pretty large Ground area already makes it a great unit when supported.. for that reason, it doesn't need a high damage rate. It's got great utility instead.
Cyclone should instead increase it's damage rate over time when Locked-On. This means you'll have to micro it, but it gives the other player time to run away before the lock-on damage increases. That seems like it'd be a very unique and fun style to have for the unit.
Disruptor should be able to micro itself backwards after firing it's shot. I think with that change alone, it wouldn't need a cost decrease at all. Maybe make it a Robo Bay upgrade. Interceptors might need a little more time before they blow up, and Tempests could use a Speed Boost upgrade on Fleet Beacon that wears off after a few seconds. Tempest should also fire less often, but do more damage.
I'm glad we're trying Overlord Drops on Evolution Chamber. That has always felt like the right place to me.. but what about making it into a unique evolution from the Overlord, on par with the Overseer? I recommend calling them Overtakers, and giving them a slightly different unit model that requires detection from the opponent to see.
I really like the direction we're headed here.. but I ask that you please take these ideas into serious consideration. This is well thought-out over many months of watching and playing, and I ask you to not disregard the possibility of still changing the model until release. We should want this game to be as fun as it can be, and I want you to ask yourself if the LotV economy feels fun, or tedious. If this isn't what you want, how can we improve it? Now is the time to ask this question.. if we can do this with macro mechanics, we can ask about the economy as well.
Just remember, this game should still be fun to play above all else.. not deliberately daunting. I hope you can see this suggestion to reduce patches to 6 per base at 1600 each achieves the goals we have of faster expanding and spread out battles. I strongly believe now is the time to make this change.. once and for all, the community could enjoy an economic model with 18 workers per base and a lower saturated mineral income. It's easy for new players to understand, and it makes the game more fun for old players in a multitude of ways. Please consider that this is the last chance to implement this. I am not asking us to abandon our goals, but to build upon them. In time, we will be glad we did.
After playing a good bit of Starbow I completely disagree that the presence of macro boosters makes SC2 harder. I think it makes it easier.
With macro boosters you have a much longer period of time where you don't need to be making units. You can go back and inject every 40 seconds or so and make your wave of units. If your injects are slightly off it doesn't make that big of a difference because percentage-wise, you won't be missing that many units since we're dealing with much higher numbers of units overall.
However, in Starbow, with the 3 larva max, it REALLY hurts you if you're not constantly producing units. I found it much harder to spend all my money in Starbow. A 1000 mineral bank in SC2 can be spent quite quickly. Not so much in Starbow.
On September 12 2015 19:45 MaximilianKohler wrote:
On September 12 2015 19:15 LDaVinci wrote:
On September 12 2015 19:05 MaximilianKohler wrote:
On September 11 2015 03:40 -Archangel- wrote: Oh well this settles it. I will skip LotV just like I did HotS and find better RTS to play. At least they saved me the money.
Agreed. I skipped HOTS as well due to the swarm host, widow mine, MSC, lack of zerg answer to forcefields, etc..
There is no way I'm buying LOTV if they don't make some major changes like removing the macro boosters, implementing the Hot mineral economy, implementing "depth of micro" fixes, pathing, etc..
Well I'm going to save you some time. They won't do Hot economy, and they will most probably have some macro mechanic. So you don't have to worry about buying the game and you can move on to another one. Try Dota, apparently from what I read here, it's a very well balanced/designed game. Just hope you like farming creep for 10 minutes.
I can't stand MOBAs. One of the things I hate about LOTV is them making it more like MOBAs.
As a zerg i hate that we are going back to injecting, i love the time you have to do all the "fun" parts of the game, insted of useing most of the time with the inject cycle
Will they ever fix the viper? I just watched some games on Avilo's stream, that unit just wrecks vikings its supposed counter. Broodlord viper is literally unstoppable.
On September 14 2015 11:24 Lexender wrote: Adepts are so ridiculous right now, I'm amazed by the fact that they think they are ok, the only reason terran is doing ok right now are liberators but as soon as they nerf liberators terrans are going to get shit on by adepts, warp prism and pylons (lol)
terrans are not doing "ok" they're literally shitting on protoss, adepts aren't doing nearly as much damage since the mule is back
On September 14 2015 11:24 Lexender wrote: Adepts are so ridiculous right now, I'm amazed by the fact that they think they are ok, the only reason terran is doing ok right now are liberators but as soon as they nerf liberators terrans are going to get shit on by adepts, warp prism and pylons (lol)
Liberators are so ridiculous right now, I'm amazed by the fact that they think they are ok, the only reason protoss is doing ok right now are Adepts but as soon as they nerf Adepts Protoss are going to get shit on by liberators, bio and mines (lol)
Geez, that is not how countering an argument works. You may as well go the Donald Trump route and call him a moron, a loser etc.
The fact is that Adepts are overly strong early game and especially so when paired with the Warp Prism as a follow up. The fact that Liberator is also very strong does not bear on this argument. The Adept needs weakening early game, and strengthening later game.
On September 15 2015 03:43 Loccstana wrote: Will they ever fix the viper? I just watched some games on Avilo's stream, that unit just wrecks vikings its supposed counter. Broodlord viper is literally unstoppable.
protip, don't watch avilo for objective analysis on balance.
On September 14 2015 11:24 Lexender wrote: Adepts are so ridiculous right now, I'm amazed by the fact that they think they are ok, the only reason terran is doing ok right now are liberators but as soon as they nerf liberators terrans are going to get shit on by adepts, warp prism and pylons (lol)
terrans are not doing "ok" they're literally shitting on protoss, adepts aren't doing nearly as much damage since the mule is back
What do you think is the best way to deal with a terran who gets to midgame safely and builds ~marine marauder medivac ghost liberator?
On September 14 2015 11:24 Lexender wrote: Adepts are so ridiculous right now, I'm amazed by the fact that they think they are ok, the only reason terran is doing ok right now are liberators but as soon as they nerf liberators terrans are going to get shit on by adepts, warp prism and pylons (lol)
terrans are not doing "ok" they're literally shitting on protoss, adepts aren't doing nearly as much damage since the mule is back
Yeah they are, they're both ridiculous, diference is liberators are ridiculous in a way that they counter adepts ridiculousness, both need heavy nerfs
EPT
(!!!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5nEgdFs.jpg)
.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/z9uY1.png)
