With all the 'save HOTS' stuff and teams coming to pass, I want to give my thoughts on the current state of the game. Some of my random thoughts/comparisons from BW will be given in this.
I made 3 tweets in support of 'save HOTS' and I want to back it up with my thoughts:
Why Read First, why should you even read this or give it a thought? I think there's a huge challenge for incorporation of new units and progression in the game. I want to talk about it and branch out to the community.
About me and credibility: I'm a North American Star League caster. I've watched tens of thousands of games. I've played thousands of games(not Kas amount of games yet!), and my single love is to analyze! I've reached #1 masters with all races so it gives me some sort of ideas about all the races and their matchups, and I can see some of the frustrations of all the races through experience and through friends/progamers venting to me. I'm a veteran of the game however I don't believe I'm 100% right with all my ideas. I know some of them have holes so please take all of this with a grain of salt. I'm trying to compile everything together right now.
Forcefield: So why is forcefield so frustrating to me as a caster/player/observer/thinker?
It boils down to the pushes that are just so lopsided.
It's so frustrating seeing game after game after game of 9:30 pushes with 3 immortals and warp prisms working time after time. In these battles, we marvel when squirtle does some awesome warp prism micro and it works so well! But isn't that what we should expect? Isn't this what we want to push our progamers to actually master?
Rather we watch progamers focusing of forcefielding, which let's be honest, it's how fast you can accurately left click. Don't get me wrong, that's a skill and it's hard to do sometimes, but that's very different than drop micro or even regular battle micro.
But the harder thing and more frustrating thing is when map makers message me and ask me my thoughts on a map. The #1 thing I say is it isn't playable because of one reason. Forcefield. It's overpowered in a lot of positions. Why? because it creates terrain that doesnt normally exist. How do you balance a map when the positions can change so drastically based on sentries in any matchup? Look at all of our maps and look at entrances to the third base. You'll see that it never has a small ramp. Why?
Think of maps in PvZ where 2 base allins are the most prevalent thing to do. Antiga, Cloud, Shakuras, etc. What do all of these have in common? look at the chokes where protoss normally attack the 3rd. How silly is it to be a map maker and have so many restrictions at 3rd bases. Not only distance, not only expansion layouts, but you always have to think forcefields. It's infuriating if you want to be innovative in map making. Fact: Forcefield is a dominating spell that is essential for protoss. There is heavy reliance on this support spell.
Now let's look at the effects of what forcefields do. The power of forcefields allow you to curtail the map to whatever you want. So that means the other units need to be scaled down. How many times do you hear "Gateways units are trash" Now I don't necessarily believe that entirely, but still we hear it time and time again. Think about that for a second. I want you to play PvT PvP and PvZ without using forcefields or sentries and see the effects. You'll be wanting a buff of course. But buffing has other impacts.
However, people will argue that it's fine though because it's synergy! Support roles! I agree completely too! :D Supporting units are awesome! We see this in MOBA and that was drives people to really watch. The fact that you see all of this teamwork/synergy within your units makes it exciting and that's what makes it so cool!
But the difference is that the support in MOBA isn't the power. The power comes from your carries. If you dont undrestand that, i'm saying the power comes from non-sentry units, but in fact in SC2 we have managing the terrain be the #1 priority instead of relying on those critical units behind the forcefields.
In starcraft 2 we currently have two problems. Sentries are support but they're dominant support. They NEED to be there else all fails. It's a reliance rather than a luxury. You can look at the difference with the Raven. Early game TvT Ravens are a luxury. It's not totally necessary to incorporate them. Their uses are awesome, but it's stylistic to incorporate.
The second problem is that they are throw away units. Not on purpose of course! But when EMP and Fungal exist, sentries die. It's a fact. Ask TT1, Naniwa, (insert protoss). You're left with garbage. That being said there needs to be something to replace the sentry to keep relevant in the game. But WAIT WAIT WAIT We balanced a lot of the game around this forcefield! This single spell that keeps us safe in the beginning and gives us synergy later on is gone D: Now i'm not saying zealots, stalkers, and immortals need to be buffed, i'm just pointing out their roles are mostly based on FF. When you remove the FF, you have a problem. You have a syngergy problem. This is the time a lot of zergs have taken advantage of in this day's metagame. This is the time when Terrans know they have more options and they can outmicro protoss.
PvZ Aside I believe this matchup comes down to the distance between sentry tech and mothership tech. The longer this time is extended, the more of an advantage Zergs have. The best Protosses' in the world will reduce this gap as much as possible, and try to fill this void with a trade of some sort to encourage passivity in both parties. Some protoss just defend the whole game but Zergs are catching onto this and realizing they can go absurdly fast broodlords to hit before mothership, and sidestep engagements regarding forcefields all together.
Think of this: Assume 50% in ZvP. (which it isn't) Think of the power of archon toilet. Think of how many lost games you've seen won because of it. Now we ask, do we want to be incorporating this outlier into our statistics. Because that's what it is. An outlier. Theres nothing stronger in the game currently than an archon toilet. Micro at end game is based on archon toilet, yet these statistics incorporate archon toilet being used.
If we remove it, think about how low PvZ will drop. Why should we balance a game on whether or not this spell works? Now consider Zergs have an advantage on Protoss. What does that say about the state of PvZ? What can we do to actually tackle this problem?
Now some protoss are really good at doing this, and some protoss just can't seem to connect these fluidly. But just try to flash back to all the games you've seen or had and you'll realize when you see protoss aggressive and when you see them back off. So you see this problem? The matchup isn't balanced on all units really. It's balanced based on two spells: Forcefield and Vortex. These are dominating in PvZ. End game timings are based when mothership is out/has vortex. Same goes with Sentries and how many forcefields you may have.
How Protoss is Balanced (cont.)
When you balance other units based on something so dominant, like forcefield and vortex, the introduction of new units becomes ten times harder. If you want an attacking unit such as a zealot or stalker, the new units become redundant since you can't make something too strong else the synergy between sentry and the new unit will dominate the field and make all other options obsolete. Hence we have little innovation. Blizzard designers are relegated to add units that don't really work into the ball or suplement the ball rather than using attacking units because those would come at the expense of already designed units.
Do you guys not see the problem? We put so much emphasis on these spell casters to balance Protoss that the other units become a bunch of misfits. We need to get the balance of the units opposite of this with Protoss if we want the styles to flourish. Right now Protoss has so little choices not because they don't want to expand their ideas, rather the principles remain the same. Forcefield synergy is a must in early game, Mothership is important end game.
TLDR How Protoss is Balanced -Balance is based on sentries and forcefields in beginning game. -Terran and Zerg have ways of eliminating or disabling sentries leaving a hole in synergy. -Because of the strength of forcefield, equal strength and power must replace that void. -Balance is stressed onto non-sentry units due to inherent power and are not considered for standalone. example stalker immortal zealot are not balanced as standalone. Balance currently assumes free damage done by these units with forcefields. -Stalkers/zealots/immortals are balanced against multiple units, whether it be collo, hts, motherships, carriers, sentry. A very dauting task. -Becacuse of different strengths of power units, it swaps the main gateway units to support rather than strength. Maybe not a problem but putting it out there -New units that do the same role as zealots/stalkers/immortals will be at the expense of at least one of the three. Hence: -Innovation for new units is pigeon holed.
My thoughts on how to rearrange Protoss So how do we even tackle this problem? Well the main thing is to reverse the role of protoss units. This is why Forcefield/Guardian shield needs to be reworked. That also means all protoss units will have to be tinkered slightly to account for the sentry nerf. It sucks because all the data we've collected in 2 years will be useless data if we do something like this. But starting over has to be on the table at some point. The mothership core and the oracle are awesome, but it doesn't change the fact that you're still going to be playing a very similar style to WoL. This is because of the sentry, how it's balanced in the beginning, how it effects the starting units, and how the sentry affects the later power units. It's not feasible to balance and have different styles of play. I haven't delved into too many ways to actually balance the game because that's a much bigger obstacle to tackle. I just want to raise awareness of this. I think Blizzard chose a very bold way to create protoss and they had no previous data to suggest it was a bad idea. I don't think they could've known of the problems going into this and I don't think the community should bash on the designers, rather we should encourage the designers that Protoss might need a make over. Do not take this off the table
As an end note, think of the impact if you rearranged the role of the initial gateway units. When you don't balance around forcefield, you end up not having to fill that void that sentries leave behind. When this happens, Protoss units don't have to be so powerful. Real synergy can take place, and such powerful/overpowered things such as the archon toilet don't have to be in the game.
Note: I would love to go into PvT but I think this will get too long since there's so many other things I want to talk about in this. Please theorycraft for yourself on how sentries affect this matchup, and how protoss innovation is stunted.
I'll give you an example of how it's done right and how it's done wrong. Right: ZvT Mech vs Roach/Neural. Wrong: ZvT Funal vs Marine Right: TvT Mech/PDD vs Marine/Marauder Wrong: TvP Blanket EMP vs Anything Protoss Wrong: PvZ Protoss pre-mothership/ht vs Fungal Growth
Ok first think of TvP Think of ghosts cloaked EMPing everything. Here's the worst situation. After you see the EMPs go off, you know the game is over. If the armies clash, even though there's 200 vs 200, you know Terran will wreck everything. You know the game is over before conflict has really started. Repeat for: TvZ Fungals EMP Seeker Missle
PvZ Fungals Feedback Vortex Forcefield
The games are over when the spells are casted. Most of these are instant. Most of end game micro isn't how well you surround. It isn't how well you micro and spread, it's making sure you get every high templar, while stimming and attacking. It's getting that clutch vortex, or those money fungals.
We're again balancing the game on things that become too dominant and too instant. They're extreme dominating tools in the respective races and it's tough to justify different styles. We now see how innovative people can be to prevent the dominating strengths of each race from flourishing whether it be cloaked high templars denying neural parasite/fungal, or cloaked banshees harasssing infestor energy to be used. We've just found styles of sidestepping and delyaing the strengths of the opposing race but theres no way to stray off of these important casters.
Everything listed above needs to change. It affects the matchups too much and makes them so silly. We need to start having casting units be more support rather than relying on them so much.
Rebalance Protoss. Make forcefield a slow rather than an object. Empower the stalker and zealot a bit more. Along with the Immortal. Now you can actually incorpoarte a 3-4 range mid tier unit in HotS that can add to the ball since protoss needs a buff at larger supplies.
Make fungal growth a slight slow, but an attack speed slow as well. DOT as well and non instant/slower than EMP. EMP is off of ghosts. It shouldn't be a standard, it should be a luxury at higher tier similar to Science Vessels. Remove HSM and put EMP on Raven. Therefore, rework Ghost to have slightly higher DPS or ability to plant widow mines. This will make Ghosts not such a pigeonhole unit where they just emp and die. Now they support with DPS and spacing/positioning.
Take out Mothership altogether. Replace back with unit that can do cloaking field. This will be a main way Protoss can defend expos since you can make multiple at high gas cost. Will be balanced based on new Protoss .
For the record, I do not think I could've come up with this until after all the data has been reviewed. I'm not innovative or forward thinking enough to actually have come up with this to prevent something like this. I wish I could offer a stronger set of fixes rather than just going off what I don't like.
Also I'm human and subject to change with my ideas. Please argue logically and politely!
I think that, more than anything, we should be trying to get blizzard to simply LISTEN more than just propose changes. You're skipping a step -- we can tell blizzard EXACTLY how to balance the game, and they likely wouldn't do shit.
Maybe some kind of weekly "meetings" with blizzard balancers and select people in the community? Pros/casters preferably
I agree a fair bit with most of what you wrote, although there are some minor quibbles.
I really love your idea of putting EMP on the raven, taking it away from the ghost, and giving mine laying to the ghost. That's very cool (at least the fan-boy in me is saying so), and fits the concept I have of a secret agent type unit.
On October 18 2012 09:32 Glon wrote: I think that, more than anything, we should be trying to get blizzard to simply LISTEN more than just propose changes. You're skipping a step -- we can tell blizzard EXACTLY how to balance the game, and they likely wouldn't do shit.
Maybe some kind of weekly "meetings" with blizzard balancers and select people in the community? Pros/casters preferably
I mean yeah of course, but thats not what the main point is trying to get across. I agree that to change american government there needs to be more communication between the people and the politicians but I'm focusing on the bill and its content.
I fucking 100% Love the 'What I would do?" ideas! I would buy HotS if they just did those changes and left everything else alone.... Forget new units when the ones you have are already flawed.
On October 18 2012 09:35 GolemMadness wrote: A lot of good stuff, but I think a major issue is going to be just how protoss will deal with broodlords without vortex.
With all the 'save HOTS' stuff and teams coming to pass, I want to give my thoughts on the current state of the game. Some of my random thoughts/comparisons from BW will be given in this.
I made 3 tweets in support of 'save HOTS' and I want to back it up with my thoughts:
EMP has to be altered, forcefield needs to be altered, guardian shield needs to be nerfed @BlizzardCS @Starcraft #SaveHOTS
Remove the mothership and all Hero like units in the game. Vortex has to go, fungal has to change @BlizzardCS @Starcraft #SaveHOTS !!
There needs to be more micro units at early mid level tech (dragoon, vulture, LURKER(instead of SH) @BlizzardCS @Starcraft #SaveHOTS
Why read? First, why should you even read this or give it a thought? I think there's a huge challenge for incorporation of new units and progression in the game. I want to talk about it and branch out to the community.
About me and credibility: I'm a North American Star League caster. I've watched tens of thousands of games. I've played thousands of games(not Kas amount of games yet!), and my single love is to analyze! I've reached #1 masters with all races so it gives me some sort of ideas about all the races and their matchups, and I can see some of the frustrations of all the races through experience and through friends/progamers venting to me. I'm a veteran of the game however I don't believe I'm 100% right with all my ideas. I know some of them have holes so please take all of this with a grain of salt. I'm trying to compile everything together right now.
How Protoss is balanced and the inherent problems Forcefield: So why is forcefield so frustrating to me as a caster/player/observer/thinker?
It boils down to the pushes that are just so lobsided.
It's so frustrating seeing game after game after game of 9:30 pushes with 3 immortals and warp prisms working time after time. In these battles, we marvel when squirtle does some awesome warp prism micro and it works so well! But isn't that what we should expect? Isn't this what we want to push our progamers to actually master?
Rather we watch progamers focusing of forcefielding, which let's be honest, it's how fast you can accurately left click. Don't get me wrong, that's a skill and it's hard to do sometimes, but that's very different than drop micro or even regular battle micro.
But the harder thing and more frustrating thing is when map makers message me and ask me my thoughts on a map. The #1 thing I say is it isn't playable because of one reason. Forcefield. It's overpowered in a lot of positions. Why? because it creates terrain that doesnt normally exist. How do you balance a map when the positions can change so drastically based on sentries in any matchup? Look at all of our maps and look at entrances to the third base. You'll see that it never has a small ramp. Why?
Think of maps in PvZ where 2 base allins are the most prevalent thing to do. Antiga, Cloud, Shakuras, etc. What do all of these have in common? look at the chokes where protoss normally attack the 3rd. How silly is it to be a map maker and have so many restrictions at 3rd bases. Not only distance, not only expansion layouts, but you always have to think forcefields. It's infuriating if you want to be innovative in map making.
Fact: Forcefield is a dominating spell that is essential for protoss. There is heavy reliance on this support spell.
Now let's look at the effects of what forcefields do: The power of forcefields allow you to curtail the map to whatever you want. So that means the other units need to be scaled down. How many times do you hear "Gateways units are trash" Now I don't necessarily believe that entirely, but still we hear it time and time again. Think about that for a second. I want you to play PvT PvP and PvZ without using forcefields or sentries and see the effects. You'll be wanting a buff of course. But buffing has other impacts.
However, people will argue that it's fine though because it's synergy! Support roles! I agree completely too! :D Supporting units are awesome! We see this in MOBA and that was drives people to really watch. The fact that you see all of this teamwork/synergy within your units makes it exciting and that's what makes it so cool!
But the difference is that the support in MOBA isn't the power. The power comes from your carries. If you dont undrestand that, i'm saying the power comes from non-sentry units, but in fact in SC2 we have managing the terrain be the #1 priority instead of relying on those critical units behind the forcefields.
In starcraft 2 we currently have two problems. Sentries are support but they're dominant support. They NEED to be there else all fails. It's a reliance rather than a luxury. You can look at the difference with the Raven. Early game TvT Ravens are a luxury. It's not totally necessary to incorporate them. Their uses are awesome, but it's stylistic to incorporate.
The second problem is that they are throw away units. Not on purpose of course! But when EMP and Fungal exist, sentries die. It's a fact. Ask TT1, Naniwa, (insert protoss). You're left with garbage. That being said there needs to be something to replace the sentry to keep relevant in the game. But WAIT WAIT WAIT
We balanced a lot of the game around this forcefield! This single spell that keeps us safe in the beginning and gives us synergy later on is gone D: Now i'm not saying zealots, stalkers, and immortals need to be buffed, i'm just pointing out their roles are mostly based on FF. When you remove the FF, you have a problem. You have a syngergy problem. This is the time a lot of zergs have taken advantage of in this day's metagame. This is the time when Terrans know they have more options and they can outmicro protoss.
PvZ Aside I believe this matchup comes down to the distance between sentry tech and mothership tech. The longer this time is extended, the more of an advantage Zergs have. The best Protosses' in the world will reduce this gap as much as possible, and try to fill this void with a trade of some sort to encourage passivity in both parties. Some protoss just defend the whole game but Zergs are catching onto this and realizing they can go absurdly fast broodlords to hit before mothership, and sidestep engagements regarding forcefields all together.
Think of this: Assume 50% in ZvP. (which it isn't) Think of the power of archon toilet. Think of how many lost games you've seen won because of it. Now we ask, do we want to be incorporating this outlier into our statistics. Because that's what it is. An outlier. Theres nothing stronger in the game currently than an archon toilet. Micro at end game is based on archon toilet, yet these statistics incorporate archon toilet being used.
If we remove it, think about how low PvZ will drop. Why should we balance a game on whether or not this spell works? Now consider Zergs have an advantage on Protoss. What does that say about the state of PvZ? What can we do to actually tackle this problem?
Now some protoss are really good at doing this, and some protoss just can't seem to connect these fluidly. But just try to flash back to all the games you've seen or had and you'll realize when you see protoss aggressive and when you see them back off. So you see this problem? The matchup isn't balanced on all units really. It's balanced based on two spells: Forcefield and Vortex. These are dominating in PvZ. End game timings are based when mothership is out/has vortex. Same goes with Sentries and how many forcefields you may have.
How Protoss is Balanced (cont.)
When you balance other units based on something so dominant, like forcefield and vortex, the introduction of new units becomes ten times harder. If you want an attacking unit such as a zealot or stalker, the new units become redundant since you can't make something too strong else the synergy between sentry and the new unit will dominate the field and make all other options obsolete. Hence we have little innovation. Blizzard designers are relegated to add units that don't really work into the ball or suplement the ball rather than using attacking units because those would come at the expense of already designed units.
Do you guys not see the problem? We put so much emphasis on these spell casters to balance Protoss that the other units become a bunch of misfits. We need to get the balance of the units opposite of this with Protoss if we want the styles to flourish. Right now Protoss has so little choices not because they don't want to expand their ideas, rather the principles remain the same. Forcefield synergy is a must in early game, Mothership is important end game.
TLDR How Protoss is Balanced
Balance is based on sentries and forcefields in beginning game.
Terran and Zerg have ways of eliminating or disabling sentries leaving a hole in synergy.
Because of the strength of forcefield, equal strength and power must replace that void.
Balance is stressed onto non-sentry units due to inherent power and are not considered for standalone. example stalker immortal zealot are not balanced as standalone. Balance currently assumes free damage done by these units with forcefields.
Stalkers/zealots/immortals are balanced against multiple units, whether it be collo, hts, motherships, carriers, sentry. A very dauting task.
Becacuse of different strengths of power units, it swaps the main gateway units to support rather than strength. Maybe not a problem but putting it out there
New units that do the same role as zealots/stalkers/immortals will be at the expense of at least one of the three.
Hence:
Innovation for new units is pigeon holed.
-My thoughts on how to rearrange Protoss
So how do we even tackle this problem? Well the main thing is to reverse the role of protoss units. This is why Forcefield/Guardian shield needs to be reworked. That also means all protoss units will have to be tinkered slightly to account for the sentry nerf. It sucks because all the data we've collected in 2 years will be useless data if we do something like this. But starting over has to be on the table at some point. The mothership core and the oracle are awesome, but it doesn't change the fact that you're still going to be playing a very similar style to WoL. This is because of the sentry, how it's balanced in the beginning, how it effects the starting units, and how the sentry affects the later power units. It's not feasible to balance and have different styles of play. I haven't delved into too many ways to actually balance the game because that's a much bigger obstacle to tackle. I just want to raise awareness of this. I think Blizzard chose a very bold way to create protoss and they had no previous data to suggest it was a bad idea. I don't think they could've known of the problems going into this and I don't think the community should bash on the designers, rather we should encourage the designers that Protoss might need a make over. Do not take this off the table
As an end note, think of the impact if you rearranged the role of the initial gateway units. When you don't balance around forcefield, you end up not having to fill that void that sentries leave behind. When this happens, Protoss units don't have to be so powerful. Real synergy can take place, and such powerful/overpowered things such as the archon toilet don't have to be in the game.
Note: I would love to go into PvT but I think this will get too long since there's so many other things I want to talk about in this. Please theorycraft for yourself on how sentries affect this matchup, and how protoss innovation is stunted.
The problems with casting units
Simple, their power.
I'll give you an example of how it's done right and how it's done wrong. Right: ZvT Mech vs Roach/Neural. Wrong: ZvT Funal vs Marine Right: TvT Mech/PDD vs Marine/Marauder Wrong: TvP Blanket EMP vs Anything Protoss Wrong: PvZ Protoss pre-mothership/ht vs Fungal Growth
Ok first think of TvP Think of ghosts cloaked EMPing everything. Here's the worst situation. After you see the EMPs go off, you know the game is over. If the armies clash, even though there's 200 vs 200, you know Terran will wreck everything. You know the game is over before conflict has really started.
Repeat for:
TvZ
Fungals
EMP
Seeker Missle
PvZ
Fungals
Feedback
Vortex
Forcefield
The games are over when the spells are casted. Most of these are instant. Most of end game micro isn't how well you surround. It isn't how well you micro and spread, it's making sure you get every high templar, while stimming and attacking. It's getting that clutch vortex, or those money fungals.
We're again balancing the game on things that become too dominant and too instant. They're extreme dominating tools in the respective races and it's tough to justify different styles. We now see how innovative people can be to prevent the dominating strengths of each race from flourishing whether it be cloaked high templars denying neural parasite/fungal, or cloaked banshees harasssing infestor energy to be used. We've just found styles of sidestepping and delyaing the strengths of the opposing race but theres no way to stray off of these important casters.
Everything listed above needs to change. It affects the matchups too much and makes them so silly. We need to start having casting units be more support rather than relying on them so much.
What I would do? The process that I'd do it?
Rebalance Protoss. Make forcefield a slow rather than an object. Empower the stalker and zealot a bit more. Along with the Immortal. Now you can actually incorpoarte a 3-4 range mid tier unit in HotS that can add to the ball since protoss needs a buff at larger supplies.
Make fungal growth a slow and non instant/slower than EMP. EMP is off of ghosts. It shouldn't be a standard, it should be a luxury at higher tier similar to Science Vessels. Remove HSM and put EMP on Raven. Therefore, rework Ghost to have slightly higher DPS or ability to plant widow mines. This will make Ghosts not such a pigeonhole unit where they just emp and die. Now they support with DPS and spacing/positioning.
Take out Mothership altogether. Replace back with unit that can do cloaking field. This will be a main way Protoss can defend expos since you can make multiple at high gas cost. Will be balanced based on new Protoss .
I hope to encourage talk about this.
Ending Note
For the record, I do not think I could've come up with this until after all the data has been reviewed. I'm not innovative or forward thinking enough to actually have come up with this to prevent something like this. I wish I could offer a stronger set of fixes rather than just going off what I don't like.
I reformatted your post to both better and cleaner!
On October 18 2012 09:35 GolemMadness wrote: A lot of good stuff, but I think a major issue is going to be just how protoss will deal with broodlords without vortex.
Corsairs
O.o do you even realize how damn long it would take a Corsair to kill a BL??? Unless every single BL was stacked like mutas in BW the entire time of attacking, to kill BL's with Corsairs it would take until LotV came up to finish one late game....
On October 18 2012 09:38 Inquisitor1323 wrote: No EMP is just going to lead to terran being roflstomped by protoss in the lategame. Terran needs a stronger lategame.
His post is complaining about the game design of EMP (once it's cast, the battle's decided whether it be in favor or against the terran), not its current power.
On October 18 2012 09:35 GolemMadness wrote: A lot of good stuff, but I think a major issue is going to be just how protoss will deal with broodlords without vortex.
Blizzard doesn't care. Starcraft can't turn the same profit that WoW did. Blizzard seems to be a company, more than a game producer. They care about maximizing profits, not necessarily making a good game.
Wrath of the lich, cataclysm, diablo 3, many aspects of sc2, and finally mists of pandaria all together combine to prove that blizzard is chasing dollars.
Blizzard needs to FIRST go back to WC3 style battle.net. With the same type of chat, customs games, and profiles, THEN BEGIN TO BALANCE. With the fundamental anti-social aspect of battle.net 0.2, it does not matter how good your game is, because people wont be playing with their friends.
I agree with everything about protoss. When i do coaching I tell my students in PvZ, you need sentry to survive early-midgame colossus or storm to survive the mid-lategame and Mothership so survive lategame. I would love them to get rid of the mothership all together it is so forced, Toss have no choice but to tech up to one. Most of my PvZs go 20+ with less then 1000 resources lost on both sides by the 15 minute mark.
[On October 18 2012 09:24 Gretorp wrote: It's so frustrating seeing game after game after game of 9:30 pushes with 3 immortals and warp prisms working time after time. In these battles, we marvel when squirtle does some awesome warp prism micro and it works so well! But isn't that what we should expect? Isn't this what we want to push our progamers to actually master?
Rather we watch progamers focusing of forcefielding, which let's be honest, it's how fast you can accurately left click. Don't get me wrong, that's a skill and it's hard to do sometimes, but that's very different than drop micro or even regular battle micro.
I completely understand the frustration expressed in the post. However, the quoted section seems to clash with another issue that people have been talking about. One of the reasons that SC2 isn't attracting as many players as other games is because of how difficult it can be to play and/or master. Drop micro, while it looks amazing, is something that the average starcraft player either has huge difficulty doing or just can't do at all. It seems that forcefield was designed to accomodate for those players that weren't used to that kind of intense micro. I've talked to plenty of people who just don't feel like playing starcraft because of ladder anxiety and because of the skill it takes to play the game. In my view, there are two polar opposites. On one side, there are people who want to keep starcraft a game that takes great skill to play; they don't want the game to be so easy that it feels like they're not doing much of anything. On the other side, there are people who are just turned off by the steep learning curve and level of skill needed to play SC2. Does anyone else share the same view? disagree?
I think if you make forcefeild a slow it would be to similar to your slow fungal. Although i do agree that fungal should be a slow. I think is you buff the zealot and the stalker gateway allins would be a problem again. I think a new gateway unit is needed that requires an extra building. Like the Dragoon Den costing 300/200 that allows you to train dragoons out of gateways. (Example only, Dragoon should not be put into hots)
On October 18 2012 10:00 MCXD wrote: What's this #SaveHOTS thing? I heard wolf mention it on twitter yesterday, and now this, but I haven't actually SEEN it.
The bigger problems for maintaining the active player base are those around interface UMS's and community in battlenet than pro balance.
That aside more micro, fungal changed / broken up and the mothership to be replaced by something more arbitery are pretty much standard of anyones rational views of the balance/gameplay situation. Some suggestons are straight up "I want broodwar" as the justifications seem weak and make leaps. Lurkers would would be ridiculous vs the unit clumping in SC2. Spawn - fall back -burrow micro means theres more micro potential with the swarm host. Killing the sentry and buffing gateway units brings back the 4gate / 7gate issues with avengance. You need a core warp gate mechanic tweak to make warping in away from home expensive if you do that (personally I'm for that - but its a huge gap in the reasoning and you don't mention it).
Excuse me if I'm being a little short, but the OP tone is talking down yet the analysis isn't all that deep.
On October 18 2012 09:32 Glon wrote:Maybe some kind of weekly "meetings" with blizzard balancers and select people in the community? Pros/casters preferably
I feel they're already a little over reliant on the opinions of popular folk from the NA scene. If they stuck to top pros more then maybe.
On October 18 2012 09:45 Thaniri wrote: Blizzard doesn't care. Starcraft can't turn the same profit that WoW did. Blizzard seems to be a company, more than a game producer. They care about maximizing profits, not necessarily making a good game.
Wrath of the lich, cataclysm, diablo 3, many aspects of sc2, and finally mists of pandaria all together combine to prove that blizzard is chasing dollars.
Blizzard needs to FIRST go back to WC3 style battle.net. With the same type of chat, customs games, and profiles, THEN BEGIN TO BALANCE. With the fundamental anti-social aspect of battle.net 0.2, it does not matter how good your game is, because people wont be playing with their friends.
I have no idea why you think anything about MoP is 'chasing dollars'. To me it is more like the first time WoW has been actually fun since TBC. + Show Spoiler +
To be fair, I didn't give Wrath much of a chance and I didn't give Cata any. I got them because friends bugged me to get them then quickly decided they were boring and quit.
I also am not sure what was so great about WC3 b.net unless people are just looking through rose tinted goggles. Anti-social? You clicked a button to join chat, just like now and then you were dumped in a lobby with mostly AFK people and spammers. I mean maybe I tried WC3 multiplayer too late, but I was never that impressed by that Battle.net.
Custom games have been a mess for most of SC2, so I will give you that.
Back towards the OP, I am not sure if slow on FF would work, but for the most part I agree with the writeup. Though I would be sad to see it go because it was a semi-unique ability as far as RTS games go, it may have to.
On October 18 2012 09:58 BernabusStarcraft2 wrote: I think if you make forcefeild a slow it would be to similar to your slow fungal. Although i do agree that fungal should be a slow. I think is you buff the zealot and the stalker gateway allins would be a problem again. I think a new gateway unit is needed that requires an extra building. Like the Dragoon Den costing 300/200 that allows you to train dragoons out of gateways. (Example only, Dragoon should not be put into hots)
Yeah this is the #1 thing not addressed in this post is that rearranging the power towards the gateway units is a tenuous balance and one they don't really want to fuck with, immortal sentry all-ins are good, but they're more likely to look at the strength of the immortal or zerg defensive options rather than mess with gateway units too much.
I honestly think that the changes are too drastic, it seems like every man and his dog who isn't a protoss player wants to drastically redesign protoss but I think you'll find once their defensive options are in place and their stargate tech in a better position they'll be a lot better spot to start messing with their offense without messing it up.
[ It's so frustrating seeing game after game after game of 9:30 pushes with 3 immortals and warp prisms working time after time. In these battles, we marvel when squirtle does some awesome warp prism micro and it works so well! But isn't that what we should expect? Isn't this what we want to push our progamers to actually master?
Rather we watch progamers focusing of forcefielding, which let's be honest, it's how fast you can accurately left click. Don't get me wrong, that's a skill and it's hard to do sometimes, but that's very different than drop micro or even regular battle micro.
I completely understand the frustration expressed in the post. However, the quoted section seems to clash with another issue that people have been talking about. One of the reasons that SC2 isn't attracting as many players as other games is because of how difficult it can be to play and/or master. Drop micro, while it looks amazing, is something that the average starcraft player either has huge difficulty doing or just can't do at all. It seems that forcefield was designed to accomodate for those players that weren't used to that kind of intense micro. I've talked to plenty of people who just don't feel like playing starcraft because of ladder anxiety and because of the skill it takes to play the game. In my view, there are two polar opposites. On one side, there are people who want to keep starcraft a game that takes great skill to play; they don't want the game to be so easy that it feels like they're not doing much of anything. On the other side, there are people who are just turned off by the steep learning curve and level of skill needed to play SC2. Does anyone else share the same view? disagree?
I think it's a tradeoff. Some gamers will love a game if it's easy to learn but hard to master. Some gamers will like the challenge of a learning curve that looks like a cliff. The Art of Learning actually addresses that as two different learning styles.
I fall in the latter group. I fell in love with bw because I saw shuttle micro that I wouldn't have ever thought of as possible in all the years I dicked around with the game before being introduced to the pro scene. I was god awful at bw, I made D+ for a few hours, but even I could imitate the basics of shuttle play enough to get butterflies in my stomach because it was so damn fun.
Starcraft2 is really, really hard. But it's hard for substantially less exciting reasons. Fragile knife fights with boring spells and microing around powerful a move units isn't exciting. Microing around a powerful micro unit was, as was microing that unit.
All of my bw buddies switched to sc2 with me, and non of them still play either, except for team games occasionally. We were all terrible at bw, but we didn't care. We had fun anyway. Being terrible at sc2 drove them all away while I stuck with it and decided to learn.
I don't think a good, competitive rts will ever be easy enough to steal the casuals from League of Legends. There is a very real, very unique physical demand on the hands of an rts player that no other genre really creates, and you can't get rid of that without making the game literally play itself (e.g. Dawn of War). I think the rts community will always have a smaller player base, by comparison. I am 100% okay with that. I do think it's possible to redesign the learning curve so the things that are hard aren't so fucking frustrating, where the game ends based on the aiming of a few spells, not long, dramatic micro battles spread throughout a macro storm.
A game should be fun and exciting enough to let a bad player forget how much he or she sucks and just play. The most fun I ever had playing bw was a pvp in a local LAN tournament that I lost. We had been sitting all day and when my friend drove us to get food after that game, I felt like a conquering champion. My reaver micro, dragoon dancing, macro, scouting- it was all better than it had ever been. I was ecstatic. The fact that I lost was the last thing on my mind.
Thank you for the post gretorp. Sums up a lot of the things about protoss that make me uncomfortable. They've gone from an expensive, powerful race to a strange glass cannon relying on gimmicks instead of straight up strength.
I wonder if Blizzard is picking up on the community unrest. I truly hope so.
On October 18 2012 10:09 Rainmansc wrote: Remove warpgate, remove collosi, increase strength of gateway units
No.
Gretorp has it right. Its the sentry. If you make gateway units stronger and remove warpgate that doesn't do enough. The sentry will still make fights stupid strong.
Warpgate makes timing attacks good. And too good. It stunts protoss when we rely on timing attacks but the sentry is what makes these timings strong. Imagine an immortal push without sentries: it sucks. Even if you can warp in at the front lines it sucks. Why do you think protoss has stopped doing no sentry gate timings for the most part? They suck vs most standard play now a days.
Rebalance Protoss. Make forcefield a slow rather than an object. Empower the stalker and zealot a bit more. Along with the Immortal. Now you can actually incorpoarte a 3-4 range mid tier unit in HotS that can add to the ball since protoss needs a buff at larger supplies. Would it be a slow without damage? What if FF was just half the size? Obviously without forcefield you need to buff the zealot stalker. I don't think guardian shield forces the game to be balanced so much that it needs to be removed, i think guardian shield is a great and interesting spell. I think stim giving terran increased move speed is more impacting on overall game balance than guardian shield. I'm probably wrong on that.
Make fungal growth a slow and non instant/slower than EMP. EMP is off of ghosts. It shouldn't be a standard, it should be a luxury at higher tier similar to Science Vessels. Remove HSM and put EMP on Raven. Therefore, rework Ghost to have slightly higher DPS or ability to plant widow mines. This will make Ghosts not such a pigeonhole unit where they just emp and die. Now they support with DPS and spacing/positioning. Slow down there lol. Fungal would still do damage right? Fungal is definitely the most OP spell and it literally removes micro. I think it's interesting to move tech around... but I still think ghosts should keep EMP, I just think it should maybe take more than 1 emp to remove all the energy from a full energy HT, or all the shields from a zealot/stalker. the radius seems good. Widowmines from ghosts.. that's ironic cause ya know.. lol
Take out Mothership altogether. Replace back with unit that can do cloaking field. This will be a main way Protoss can defend expos since you can make multiple at high gas cost. Will be balanced based on new Protoss . You mean you can mass cloak toss at more than one location? Not sure how I feel about that and I play mostly toss. Remove mothership, then see if you need another unit to replace it, I think you don't, but I would understand if blizz wanted to at least add one for any unit removed. I think the mothership core is a nice unit to have late game, people don't use recall enough and that's an incredibly powerful spell that will buy time for toss, or let them deliver killing blow. It shouldn't be OP, it just allows toss a viable option to death drop, (zerg has OL, terran has medivac which cost supply but also provide huge support to army)
I wish you talked more about HT. I think that without emp HT's and storm would be too powerful. Storm is a spell that can be micro against, unlike fungal, but for their supply late game, ht's are incredible versus terran. A simple solution, and a smallish buff to gateway units(hts) would be to give them back the khardyuin amulet (spelling?) energy upgrade.
On October 18 2012 10:09 Rainmansc wrote: Remove warpgate, remove collosi, increase strength of gateway units
I wish you would state the reasoning behind these proposed changes. I have heard people support these ideas, and I believe I know why they think this way. But if you want to convince anyone you should consider offering your reasoning..
On October 18 2012 10:24 soullogik wrote: blizzard needs to stop going down the path they are on
then completely rebuild zerg & protoss and call it hots
Same thing here, what are you even saying? I feel like I'm talking to my x-girlfriend where I"m just supposed to know what you're thinking and feeling, and by nature of association I will feel the same way and agree with you.
[On October 18 2012 09:24 Gretorp wrote: It's so frustrating seeing game after game after game of 9:30 pushes with 3 immortals and warp prisms working time after time. In these battles, we marvel when squirtle does some awesome warp prism micro and it works so well! But isn't that what we should expect? Isn't this what we want to push our progamers to actually master?
Rather we watch progamers focusing of forcefielding, which let's be honest, it's how fast you can accurately left click. Don't get me wrong, that's a skill and it's hard to do sometimes, but that's very different than drop micro or even regular battle micro.
I completely understand the frustration expressed in the post. However, the quoted section seems to clash with another issue that people have been talking about. One of the reasons that SC2 isn't attracting as many players as other games is because of how difficult it can be to play and/or master. Drop micro, while it looks amazing, is something that the average starcraft player either has huge difficulty doing or just can't do at all. It seems that forcefield was designed to accomodate for those players that weren't used to that kind of intense micro. I've talked to plenty of people who just don't feel like playing starcraft because of ladder anxiety and because of the skill it takes to play the game. In my view, there are two polar opposites. On one side, there are people who want to keep starcraft a game that takes great skill to play; they don't want the game to be so easy that it feels like they're not doing much of anything. On the other side, there are people who are just turned off by the steep learning curve and level of skill needed to play SC2. Does anyone else share the same view? disagree?
Huh? Since when did people start thinking that lowering the basketball hoop would make Basketball a more popular sport?
The point of the micro is that it IS easy in the grand scheme of things. Pro level micro can be created within dozens of hours of practice, game understanding and purveying skill take thousands of hours. They aren't polar opposites because with some practice a noob can achieve semi-pro level micro, but within that time period they likely lack the game understanding and mechanics to ever get to a point where that micro will be the thin edge they need to win.
tl;dr Micro is icing. Hard micro has just about ZERO reason to stunt playerbase growth.
Also, Gretorp should really be scouted by Blizzard as "Progamer Liaison Personnel" because of his extensive knowledge of the game itself as well as the proscene. He's just so.... I don't know... Crisp? He just has the air and mentality of someone who is mentally flexible enough to be able to both understand the harshest content while being able to refine that same content into cogent conquerable points of interest.
The only unit change that I think would make a lots of sense is giving the Infestor much slower energy regen while also giving it Defiler-esque consume. My thinking is that giving the Infestor consume and a cap of 250 energy while taking away one of its three current spells removes a large portion of the all around strength of the Infestor while also giving the Zerg a choice at having a gigantic gas surplus to use on other units. The lower number of infestors over all also incentivizes/empowers the use of counter spell usage. Doing this allows for the Infestor to take a more backseat role in battle while also allowing for a passive buff to units like Mutalisks/Hydras/faster ultra tech. It's not about making zergs want the Infestor less per se, but wanting more of other units to benefit from the use of the Infestor at all. I thought of this because I always found it absolutely dreary to watch units die from 15-20 seconds of chain fungal with nothing else happening... Enemy units are afraid to come closer, Zerg units would rather just sit back and wait for their enemy's inevitable death... No more! Time to SaveHOTS#!
The thing that's good about fungal is that it's one of the few things that let a Zerg win when they are behind. They have very little that lets them do this, save for miracle baneling hits.
A bunch of great, valid points. But just like Destiny's post, most of this isn't novel and the fact of the matter is the community has been harping these ideas since the beginning. Blizzard simply doesn't listen or is very adamant on doing things their own way. Sadly I don't think we're going to see Blizzard take the necessary steps to save SC2. It's gotten to the point where the only rationale I can think of is Blizzard purposely ignores the community out of spite.
Great post, man! I really like the idea of experimenting with removing EMP from ghosts, and altering that with spider mines (this would give a nifty duality of stealth along with more ghost usage). It's all theoretical at this point, but interesting suggestions all the same. I wholeheartedly believe Blizz can make HotS awesome if they're willing to listen to these sort of community ideas, and with some of the changes implemented I see it as a possibility (but I'm being an optimist).
On October 18 2012 09:41 StarcraftNerd1547 wrote: I do think that 8 gate/ht allins would be insane vs terran with EMP so high in tech. Otherwise i pretty much agree with everything.
there was nothing about removing Snipe....
On October 18 2012 11:01 Serp87 wrote: If I want to go mech in TvP (one of the goals for HOTS btw) , how I suppose to do it without EMP on a ghost vs the immortal and the archon ? you dont have the gas to support both raven , mech and upgrades all the same time.
If I want to go mech in TvP (one of the goals for HOTS btw) , how I suppose to do it without EMP on a ghost vs the immortal and the archon ? you dont have the gas to support both raven , mech and upgrades all the same time.
On October 18 2012 10:49 SupLilSon wrote: A bunch of great, valid points. But just like Destiny's post, most of this isn't novel and the fact of the matter is the community has been harping these ideas since the beginning. Blizzard simply doesn't listen or is very adamant on doing things their own way. Sadly I don't think we're going to see Blizzard take the necessary steps to save SC2. It's gotten to the point where the only rationale I can think of is Blizzard purposely ignores the community out of spite.
I'm pretty sure the REAL point of the post is to attempt to harness community outcry and childishness into something we've all just about agreed that we wanted but lacked the collective resolve to give real standing power. You know, turning the hollering droves of thoughtless idiocy into a coherent bit of constructive usable theory at a time when Blizzard is most willing to be receptive?
The only problem is that most of these ideas are totally infeasible with how Blizzard works right now. Can you honestly see them paying some guy to code up a mod where warpgates work differently, throw it on the PTR and analyze 2 weeks worth of results? On top of that, think of how many teams, players and sponsors depend on that part of the game staying like it is (even though it sucks).
It would be great if Blizzard made some workflow changes in order to at least show that they're listening to this new wave of suggestions. Hire somebody who authored a popular custom map, teach them the internal dev tools and have them make a "weekly mod" - alternate warpgate designs, alternate forcefield designs, alternate fungals, EMP-based raven like a science vessel, etc. It could even be integrated into the main game client on each server (because running the game from the PTR is so obviously a barrier to entry for lazy people with only a bit of time to spare). Make it work like the PTR patches, but instead of responding to tournament results and flavour-of-the-week crying, challenge some of these really high-level design issues. It's very obvious that this wasn't done adequately during the beta or before.
You can even make the analysis community-driven. People always cast doubt on Blizzard's internal decision making, and this would give all the math majors in the audience a chance to take part. If it's just one guy to pay on their end, it's much easier to justify. David Kim and Dustin Browder can keep working on the direct, simpler goals like "balancing the tempest" while "the new guy" works in 'R&D' to find the best way for warpgates to work.
If the game is supposedly stagnating/dying (Destiny's thread), this might be a good way to get some renewed interest while having a chance of "saving" the gameplay.
What is there to lose anyway? The fact that any caster still calls something a "sick fungal" is proof that you can market anything to the esports audience if you have guys in suits saying 'baller' occasionally. It's not like making this game better will drive people away, but it will definitely bring more people in.
I think his view might be different due to the fact that he's constantly watching Koreans perhaps, I'm not entirely sure what to make of the post but there is many different opinions from many respected players and casters throughout Starcraft and I think that this is a good thing.
I personally feel that Battle.net has to be close to completely redone with community in mind, clearly community and communication are severely lacking.
To the people that think we are overreacting and we somehow shouldn't be having such discussions, I ask you this: If you truly love Starcraft 2, Isn't it worth fighting for? If you have already played HOTS, are you content with the minimal changes to the game? are you happy with the lack of "expansion"?
blizz only goes the easy way with forseeable consequences when community complains, like removing the warhound instead of reworking it or bringing an alternative. now or never blizz, time is running up.
On October 18 2012 11:15 MastaKilla wrote: To the people that think we are overreacting and we somehow shouldn't be having such discussions, I ask you this: If you truly love Starcraft 2, Isn't it worth fighting for? If you have already played HOTS, are you content with the minimal changes to the game? are you happy with the lack of "expansion"?
and if you really love starcraft 2, how can you stand the fact that half of the games are owned entirely by the infestor?
All these posts and ideas are great... and I don't disagree with most of them, but I think the only way to really speak out is to get organized and actually stop playing. Until you can actually get a significant number of people to commit to action, anything you want to have happen either won't... or it will be painstakingly slow.
[On October 18 2012 09:24 Gretorp wrote: It's so frustrating seeing game after game after game of 9:30 pushes with 3 immortals and warp prisms working time after time. In these battles, we marvel when squirtle does some awesome warp prism micro and it works so well! But isn't that what we should expect? Isn't this what we want to push our progamers to actually master?
Rather we watch progamers focusing of forcefielding, which let's be honest, it's how fast you can accurately left click. Don't get me wrong, that's a skill and it's hard to do sometimes, but that's very different than drop micro or even regular battle micro.
I completely understand the frustration expressed in the post. However, the quoted section seems to clash with another issue that people have been talking about. One of the reasons that SC2 isn't attracting as many players as other games is because of how difficult it can be to play and/or master. Drop micro, while it looks amazing, is something that the average starcraft player either has huge difficulty doing or just can't do at all. It seems that forcefield was designed to accomodate for those players that weren't used to that kind of intense micro. I've talked to plenty of people who just don't feel like playing starcraft because of ladder anxiety and because of the skill it takes to play the game. In my view, there are two polar opposites. On one side, there are people who want to keep starcraft a game that takes great skill to play; they don't want the game to be so easy that it feels like they're not doing much of anything. On the other side, there are people who are just turned off by the steep learning curve and level of skill needed to play SC2. Does anyone else share the same view? disagree?
I have a friends list of about 40-50 people 1 of them plays 1v1 the vast majority of them exclusively play custom games and about 10 of them play team games. The difficulty level is a non issue for game enjoyment the lack of non-ladder games/functionality is. My favourite memories of broodwar were constanly having to rm custom games with the same room of people in an effort to practice and try to beat them or playing fastest nr 20 maps and ramming the giant armies at each other now neither of those features exist.
On October 18 2012 09:32 Glon wrote: I think that, more than anything, we should be trying to get blizzard to simply LISTEN more than just propose changes. You're skipping a step -- we can tell blizzard EXACTLY how to balance the game, and they likely wouldn't do shit.
Maybe some kind of weekly "meetings" with blizzard balancers and select people in the community? Pros/casters preferably
they are listening, and any sweeping changes to WOL units will be done further into the beta.
I think HOTS is a good point of balancing out the said changes. The current sentry FF are necessity to prevent early/mid game all-ins, but with advent of mothership core and hallucination base-research for sentry means that FF can be modified.
Current fungals are extremely strong, but a painful necessity against some mid game Terran/Protoss timing pushes. With advent of swarm hosts, viper blind clouds. Fungal no longer needs to be root/destroy for ground troops (perhaps slow/damage for ground, root/damage for air.)
I agree that instant EMP is really hit or miss right now, and I hope it can instead be modified as a larger AOE shield/energy draining mechanism over time instead that allows some zone control. With widow mines (perhaps reintroduction of warhounds) as backups for such zone control, it'd make both terran and protoss force to micro.
In the beta for HoTS, I think Blizzard has a real opportunity to revamp the game that is not BW, but a game that is more dynamic than WoL. I really think Warhound with modification (modded haywire missile, lower base damage vs non-mechanical, perhaps give them small energy bars so HT lategame helps counter them) would be a good addition to HotS. Terran would be able to be aggressive with Warhounds and hellions, but since mech anti-air is very slow, air play becomes quite viable for protoss due to stronger air units like carrier/tempest. Zergs can be more mobile in late game with hydra speed and viper and infestor, instead of simple brood lord +infestor combo. Protoss can put on micro based pressure with "slow, valuable units" like colossi, immortal, carrier balls due to the mothership core recall.
If Blizzard thinks of fixing the game overall instead of making a patch of few units here and there, then HotS may be the saving grace of SCII eSport scene.
hey gretorp, big thanks for writing this. you have earned my respect and admiration. You demostrated that you are not one of "those" people that never criticize the game, that their only answer is "give it time" or "trust blizzard", those people can no longer be trusted they are now puppets of Blizzard PR.
We need more people to join the save HOTS movement.
Yeah, if Artosis is telling everyone to calm down I think we should listen. He's a smart guy. I trust his word more than any other person in the community, and if he's saying SC2 still has a bright future then I believe him.
I love the idea of having ghosts plant widow mines,
I would be completely fine if they buffed the hell out of every single Protoss unit, as long as they get rid of warp gate. It's pretty neat the first time you see it, but completely negating defender's advantage breaks the game for me. Getting a hidden pylon in someone's base is just as boring to watch as the instant losses caused by spell casters IMO. I think that removing warp gate would allow the gateway units to be buffed to the point where sentries aren't as important.
Yeah, if Artosis is telling everyone to calm down I think we should listen. He's a smart guy. I trust his word more than any other person in the community, and if he's saying SC2 still has a bright future then I believe him.
He is just one person. Even though he has a lot of experience and influence, that doesn't mean his opinion is a be all end all. There are many people that disagree with him.
Very solid post Gretorp. The community needs more big names voicing their concerns for how broken protoss is (among other issues you listed) in order for blizzard to listen. Blizzard WILL listen if enough people consistently complain about something. The important thing is to remain vigilant, keep bringing up good discussion points, and raise awareness.
Hi Gretorp, thank you for your thoughts. I speak here as someone who played a lot of SC:BW, watches a lot of SC2 and plays a lot of Dota 2.
I don't feel I'm much knowledgeable to discuss metagame and how or if the current metagame is killing HOTS, so I'll avoid talking much about it. I think the root of the problem is less about the metagame, and more about 'eSports.' I'll try to explain my point.
Even if you have a perfectly balanced game, you can have completely shitty and non-entertaining games coming from it. If you want an example, think on chess, you can play it poorly and like a coward, or you can play offensive, aggressive chess. Ultimately, it's the players who decide which kind of game we're watching. This is very clear in Dota. There was an era where ganks weren't as profitable as just playing safe and farming gold aiming the late game, but even so there was a handful of teams that kept using the ganking style and losing. When I asked them why are they still playing with this style, and not the other one who has been more successful, the answer was 'because ganking doto is best doto'. It's the players who decide how the game is being played. The proof of this right now is League of Legends, whose balance decisions are the complete opposite from Dota, but whose metagame is exactly the same that existed on Dota four or five years ago. It's actually amazing to see the old Dota metagame happening on LoL. So, even if the game is perfectly balanced, you can still have shitty games. That's why I don't think the most part of the problem lies in balance/metagame discussions.
I think the problems are two: Blizzard doesn't seem to understand what their clients wants, and they don't seem to understand that their game is a sport for a lot of people, and the difference between managing a sport and a game.
I'll start for the later point. If you look at every sport in the world, their rules change to adapt to their players circumstances. For example, the change from 30 to 24 seconds on basketball and several other changes on football, soccer, volleyball, etc. While we can say that these small changes completely modified their games, at the same time, the changes didn't violate the tradition built by their games. This happens in Dota 2. When a new hero or a new item is added, the game changes completely, but it's still the same game. What Blizzard did with Starcraft is very different from this (please, I'm not trying to start a BW vs SC2 discussion). They decided to ignore the tradition built by the players and arbitrarily created a completely different game. It's like passing a rule that using hands on basketball is now a violation, and you can now only play with your feets. They didn't add depth and new things to the base that was built after long years, they simply created everything from scratch. The reason for this is simple: they build the game with the single player campaign in mind. The multiplayer is just a detail. This choice really hurt Starcraft as a whole, divided the community, etc.
(Based on this idea, I think that it's a mistake to remove sentries now. Lots of my favorite moments in SC2 had sentries on it. You can't simply erase it's existance, they must find a way to make it work)
And this leads us to the former point: Blizzard doesn't understand what their clients want. Sure, there's a lot of people who'll buy HOTS only for the single player, but they can't deny that their game is a sport. Their clients wants Blizzard to treat it like a sport. How do they do that? They do that by allowing their clients to do what people who practice sports do. If you're a player, you'll want to watch replays together without having so synchronize it all the time, from any point of view you want (caster, players, youself controlling the camera); you'll want to watch other players live from inside the client; if you're a tournament organizer, you want the opportunity to sell tickets from inside the game to watch competitive tournaments, which gives your tournament visibility and an income; you'll want the ability to feature your sponsors on the client. On the last Dota patch, they just created a highlight system that shows you only the highlight moments of a game. I can easily create a highlight series ESPN-style with just some clicks. See, the game invites me to produce value, and I can do it inside the game. To produce value in Starcraft, I need to go outside. SC2 cost 60 dollars, and it doesn't have 1/10 of the features that Dota, a to-be F2P game, And it simply doesn't make any sense.
I hope this made any sense. And my apologies for the bad english, it's not my natural language.
I always thought it would be cooler to have ghosts act more like (and dont yell at me for saying this) the Sniper squads in C&C. Permacloaked units that sit around the map and pick off stray units, or the key targets within the army.
Your army would walk around, suddenly pew pew. Suddenly your scared to walk in the direction, and scout ahead to find them at risk of having your expensive guys just picked off.
It could be similar in sc2, remove the ghosts standard attack, give them permanent cloaking (and obviously because of this, put them farther down in the tech tree, like make acadamy req fact or even armory), and let them roam around, spot army movements, fire off some snipes or EMP rounds when the time is right. The damage would be small, but critical enough that bad movements don't lose your whole army, but still has a large enough impact to encourage forward scouting with detection.
just a possible alternative to giving them mines x) great post Gretorp
All of the arguments for the difficulty of play with regards to non-pros is silly. The game is only as difficult to play as your opponent makes it for you. The ladder system is designed to match you to players where you play with an approximate 1-1 win/loss ratio. Therefore, given enough ladder games, everyone will always be playing opponents of around the same skill level. If you can't do warp prism micro during an immortal/sentry push, odds are pretty good your opponent can't either.
Therefore, the only question of difficulty of play is at what point should the skill cap be set, the skill cap being defined as perfect play (all decisions are the best possible decision, all control is flawless and achieved with 100% efficiency, and no opportunity is missed out on: no mistakes of any kind).
What most people seem to be talking about isn't difficulty of play, but rather the difficulty of executing something flashy. They want to see something cool that the pros can do that they can't, with the hopes that they can one day do it. That's tactical difficulty, not strategic difficulty, and people tend to confuse the two.
The game would be helped if blizzard would stop trying to create units for specific roles, and instead design units with a given theme in mind and allow them to fill a role (like harass or powerhouse), but without pigeon-holing them by hobbling their ability to do other things. The oracle is an example of a terrible unit: it can literally only harass. Even worse, it can't even do that spectacularly well. It can't win games instantly like hellions, making it very forgiving to your opponent. It can't threaten tech, only the mineral line, which means your opponent has only 1 precise location per base that can be threatened by it. Unlike mutalisks, which can threaten buildings, units that defend against them in small numbers, and workers, the oracle can't be much of a threat. That means it won't be taken seriously and the unit has little to no function: you can't use it to scare your opponent, you can't do real damage so forcing a pin is hard, and it has no use outside of that role. Sure, you can do some mineral gain damage (but not gas, which is arguably more important, since to the protoss, who needs a tech advantage to really fight, delaying enemy tech is super strong), but you aren't taking away minerals from the opponent, merely delaying his gain of them. He'll still mine out the base eventually. Unless you can continuously entomb over and over again (which no good player would allow), expect to accomplish nothing. Hell, terran gets a building (planetary fortress) that stops the oracle at an entire base almost guaranteed. Void siphon is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't really do damage and can't seriously threaten an opponent either. It also has no function outside of harass.
The stalker is an example of a better designed unit (not stats or balance, but design). It can harass, it can fight, it serves an anti-air role, it is powerful when micro'd and weak when not controlled, and it can fill other purposes (like blocking ramps to prevent hellion run-bys by virtue of it's size, etc.)
Like Gretorp said, and this is a little hard to understand because he skipped a few steps when explaining his reasoning, but the fact that the sentry is so necessary for protoss early game means every other unit is forced to be pigeon-holed into a specific role apart from the other couple of core units.
I feel that spell casters that have the ability to lock units in place is a fairly silly idea. Although they might sound great on paper, but just the sheer power that the sentry and infestor gives to the protoss and zerg respectively, is just way too much. No game should be focused on a single set of FF's or a single set of fungals.
My take on this: - Decrease damage output of every unit, so that battles last longer and there is a room for micromanagement, and also it will give sometime to comeback rather than losing your entire base. Plus, it makes positioning much more important.
-Fire Dustin Browder or change his role. He clearly failed past 3 years. Make him an adviser or let him go another department.
- Don't add new units, focus on synergism and balance of current ones. Every unit needs to be looked very closely. For example: Every matchup against Terran comes down to "did I counter Marines or not", why such a cheap unit is too versatile? It restricts so many different strategies simply by countering too much stuff (90% of protoss units are countered by marines) etc etc...
Oh thank god someone with a bit of reach started this topis. Yup, toss needs a HUGE rework. I love the sentry FF slow idea- will still prevent kiting and let zealots get up close.
"Ok first think of TvP Think of ghosts cloaked EMPing everything. Here's the worst situation. After you see the EMPs go off, you know the game is over. If the armies clash, even though there's 200 vs 200, you know Terran will wreck everything. You know the game is over before conflict has really started."
God this happened to me just yesterdy. Soon as the emps went down over my templars and some sentries i laughed and left the game. Dunno what could be done about it tho haha im so useful
On October 18 2012 12:48 bokeevboke wrote: My take on this: - Don't add new units, focus on synergism and balance of current ones. Every unit needs to be looked very closely. For example: Every matchup against Terran comes down to "did I counter Marines or not", why such a cheap unit is too versatile? It restricts so many different strategies simply by countering too much stuff (90% of protoss units are countered by marines) etc etc...
This would sound like a good idea but then the 95% of the playersbase AKA the casuals that the games needs for it to stay alive wont like this idea very much.
Even with the Warhound removal, there was massive QQ everywhere except these forums.
Couldn't agree with all of this more. The TL;DR is twofold - casters are so powerful than everything else is balanced around them, and that in any given caster v. caster battle, one caster is completely dominant.
I've always thought you should be able to attack forcefields to destroy them.
I don't quite get the stuff about emps though as I've seen lots of battles go both ways. yeah archons can disappear in an instant after an emp i've also seen one or two stroms or colossus hold off rather big bio bars too
Hey, I haven't read all replies so maybe it's already been said but I'll say it again if that's the case. I wish they'd remove some of the units that have overpowering and easy to use abilities (as mentioned sentries, infestors and ghosts) and re-add things like mutalisk micro, carrier micro and such. (I'm not familiar with brood war I just watched videos e.g. nony explaining carrier micro). It would create an aspect where a unit in one players hand might be extremely powerful but in the other players hand weak to useless. Also you'll have players that are comfortable with bulky economic based armies and play to that style and players that will opt for quick tech and units that have the ability to be cost effective by their micro.
I like the idea that in big battles that even if you're 40 supply behind superior unit control can bring you back into the game. Maybe give sentries a slow field with reduced armor or such and let infestors do an aoe damage spell similar to storm but that once casted sticks upon the units. There's alot of ways to go about this but I think the lines are the same bring back micro and remove things that prevent micro.
You still dont see a huge issue of PvZ. A 25min turtle game just to end in a broodlordinfestor deathball vs mothership deathball is just boring to watch. Yeah, the end battle is kind of entertaining but the 20 minutes leading up to it is excruciatingly painful Alot of PvZ games are like this, there is minimal action until both sides have their deathballs and even then, they just keep dancing around without any action at all.
I agree with your point about alot of PvZ games ending in a 9:30 minute timing where either the zerg is just stomped or the toss loses on the spot. This has just become stale,
imagine if BW PvZ was like this, where half of the games are a turtlefest ending in one or two battles and the other half is a 10 minute game that ends in a one sided timing.
Ive switched off so many PvZ games when watching GSL/MLG/[whatever other casted game] where its just non stop turtling.
Something needs to be done to Zerg and Protoss. Broodlord infestor turtle plays need to be GONE.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this, but instead of taking out FF altogether, how about we try out what a lot of people suggested in the past -- make FF's destructible with HP or somehow nerf it some other way?
People need to seriously calm down with the 'sky is falling' attitude. The 'save HOTS' campaign already did much more harm than good by enforcing the image of a mindless internet mob that knows only that Blizzard sucks and MOTBAs will kill SC2. The moments when pros and caster personalities start pushing their own vision for the game the community bandwagoning will go completely out of control and before long death of SC2 will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
On October 18 2012 13:19 pmp10 wrote: People need to seriously calm down with the 'sky is falling' attitude. The 'save HOTS' campaign already did much more harm than good by enforcing the image of a mindless internet mob that knows only that Blizzard sucks and MOTBAs will kill SC2. The moments when pros and caster personalities start pushing their own vision for the game the community bandwagoning will go completely out of control and before long death of SC2 will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
What is wrong with that? Blizzard apparently isnt listening, maybe its time we smack them around a bit so they stop making terrible games.
I like both Fungal and Force Fields exactly the way they are. As someone who doesn't play but has watched every season of MLG/NASL/GSL, I can say that these two spells have a great 'wow' factor when someone skilled pulls it off. And a more subtle wow when the other player micro's his units to mitigate their effects. It makes it an exciting struggle and SC2 needs more of that, not less.
This is not SC1, Blizz should not try to make it like SC1. SC2 has its own identity with these abilities and I would hate to see them changed.
On October 18 2012 13:28 ElMeanYo wrote: I like both Fungal and Force Fields exactly the way they are. As someone who doesn't play but has watched every season of MLG/NASL/GSL, I can say that these two spells have a great 'wow' factor when someone skilled pulls it off. And a more subtle wow when the other player micro's his units to mitigate their effects. It makes it an exciting struggle and SC2 needs more of that, not less.
This is not SC1, Blizz should not try to make it like SC1. SC2 has its own identity with these abilities and I would hate to see them changed.
Both of those skills prevent micro. If you want something that WOW you, look back at a bw game. THOSE took skills. F + click does not (contrary to popular beliefs). What blizzard is doing is trying to get in more players and turning away from their original player base. I think they should add a "competitive mode" for sc2 where u can only have 24 unit selection, no auto casting, and this will be used in tourneys while nooblets can play the fun mode (which is sc2 right now) with unlimited selection. Basically, just make BW with better graphics, because sc2 isnt "fun to watch". What people consider fun, takes 20 minutes of NR 20 to get to and the last battle last only like a minute. This isnt sex, we want sc2 to have constant action (like BW) throughout the game to make it interesting.
I agree with a lot of what you said and yeah FF IMO is the most frustrating thing in the game at the moment (apart from the thor which I think is a monstrosity) anyway I would like to see the suggestions tried and see how it works out.
But keep in mind everyone, we complain so much about maps and how maps are created, yet we don't realize how much the units affect how the maps are created. I challenge all of you to think of a way to make it so forcefield works in all P matchups with 3rd bases, and protoss doesnt have some big advantage or big disadvantage. It's super difficult!
On October 18 2012 13:53 Gretorp wrote: But keep in mind everyone, we complain so much about maps and how maps are created, yet we don't realize how much the units affect how the maps are created. I challenge all of you to think of a way to make it so forcefield works in all P matchups with 3rd bases, and protoss doesnt have some big advantage or big disadvantage. It's super difficult!
Totally agree. Maps are the way they are, just to try to patch game flaws. With a better design, diverse maps would be posible.
Two things should change about the in-game stuff (go to destiny post to check about side-game changes that must be done):
Infestor: Is the most atrocious unit in the game, even worse than ff. Remove the root on the units, jesus.
Global Dps: With the faster "in-game" time + clumped units + a lot of aoe, the REAL TIME (aka spectator time) dps, is plain INSANELY HIGH. So most battles are short as fuck, and there is no time to enjoy some back and forth pushes (a crap to spectate). Oh, yeah, and micro is much more worthless (just positioning is important), again, crappy for the spectator.
On October 18 2012 13:28 ElMeanYo wrote: I like both Fungal and Force Fields exactly the way they are. As someone who doesn't play but has watched every season of MLG/NASL/GSL, I can say that these two spells have a great 'wow' factor when someone skilled pulls it off. And a more subtle wow when the other player micro's his units to mitigate their effects. It makes it an exciting struggle and SC2 needs more of that, not less.
This is not SC1, Blizz should not try to make it like SC1. SC2 has its own identity with these abilities and I would hate to see them changed.
God Gretorop, you were my fav back in the beta days, and I've liked you since then, but this post is just great. Great great great. Forcefields have completely fucked up SC2, and the game NEEDS to be re-designed around their removal.
Remove fungal too or at least the micro-countering aspect if it's needed, but god, FFs are FAR too dominant and FAR too boring and FAR too influential on map design.
I think almost every professional player that plays zerg or protoss is getting quite fed up with the matchup at this point. Lategame is either -> Mothership -> awesome vortex -> impossible to lose for protoss. or infestors -> fungal -> cant micro -> instantly lose everything
The matchup at end game is 100% based almost 100% based on mothership control which is clunky and infuriating. If they do nothing to change it I imagine more and more people will drift away from something that isn't even appealing to the players; let alone to watch everything instantly die with no suspense, micro, or ability factor.
I love your change suggestions, mainly because you're bringing back ensnare + arbiter cloak. That's exactly why blizz wont do it though, because it's been done :T
How much would it changes if there was less gas in the maps, gasless expansions, or just one. Would this just delay the timings or change the units composition?. I think that with this the ability to replace the heavy gas units would be far more difficult and they may not be in the same numbers, FF are sick, because you have a ton of sentries , same with ghost, or infestors, and the problem is that you can replace them rather easily imo.
I have to agree with all the points Gretorp brings up. But, please recall pre-Infestor popularity times. We did not see a lot of that specific unit around. Suddenly a lot of people were using it and very significant changes were made to how Fungal works and Neural Parasite as well. Sentry received none such significant updates or reworks. What I'm trying to get to, is that FF on its own has been, is, and will be one of the most design-shitting abilities in the game due to its sheer power to morph the battlefield. Needless to say, I have zero idea why Blizzard has not addressed this issue at all. I can see that the ability is working as they intended to and they are reluctant to change it because of the potential chaotic whirlpool it might induce in the game balance so far.
But, consider the following: HotS will see the Sentry having non-researched Hallucinations. Infested Terrans can be used to block pathing. Entomb covers minerals with an attackable unit-like entity. Never in my playtime in StarCraft II have I understood why I cannot simply destroy FF's with attacks. Massive units do not come out fast enough to matter, and when they do they are usually useless as hell due to their inherent sluggishness. I have always found it weird for Protoss to have an ability which can basically negate any sort of ground-based reinforcements (or army for that matter) from a given area. I can see how this might be cool, high-tech and lore-friendly, but honestly, from a gameplay perspective it's frustrating and ungraceful, which makes it a bore to watch. I always cringe when I see Sentries FF a ramp indefinitely and you have freaking TANKS or goddamn-near huge biological beasts and they simply slither about, doing absolutely nothing.
The bottom line is, that not even ONCE has the casting energy, ability radius or cooldown changed for FF. The only "massive" change was the vulnerability to massive units, and that's it. It's almost a non-issue as it was basically designed (how I see it) to enable the same Protoss player who laid down the FF's to clear a path with his own Colossi, to set up a new batch of FF's further in. Other than that, zero change to the ideology of the Sentry whatsoever, and that has been a mistake. This led to stagnant tactics such as FFE, which almost always ends up being a Gateway/Colossus army into Toilet, with no real innovation needed, due to the defensive/offensive capabilities of the Sentry. It's holding absolutely everything back, exactly as Gretorp pointed out. I respect your opinion immensely, man, and I cannot agree more. I can see how re-balancing or re-designing the Sentry can be a daunting task, because that would open up a lot of issues that can just be solved with, you guessed it, FF. It's bad to see map design fall into a hole because of a couple of units (Tank, Sentry, Infestor, for example) being just a bit too effective. If it's a PvX game, then it pretty much boils down to Sentries and their counters thereof. Having the Sentry in the Protoss lineup as it is now is harsh for the developers as well, because introducing new units that fit in well into that sort of balance mess is difficult - I can see why there are so many new air units.
I've had a couple of ideas bouncing in my head how to destroy/mitigate FF's in early to mid game, which include Fungal/EMP/A-click/cooldowns/etc., but I don't see Blizzard implementing those kind of changes any time soon because it's kinda more convenient to just let that unit stay the same and change only some of the others, if at all. Because, if you change the Sentry, there's a lot more to change and it will snowball from there (this is NOT a bad thing, by the way).
I think the main problem is that Blizz probably know most of that stuff, including Colossus issue but they're too afraid to change anything drastically
They actually can be too difficult to use properly, but when it's done well then the advantage is significant. You have to take into account all the people who don't have near-perfect FF skills, but even then the potential of the ability remains the same (the words "enormous" and "game breaking" come to mind).
Really good post but protoss has more problems than sentry/units relative to sentry. I think a big problem is there are so many players who still do not actually believe protoss is made wrong. There needs to be like every single sc2 player complaining so blizzard will realize they need to completely rework how protoss plays.
I doubt they will do it though.. they are trying to earn money fast not make a great game. A great game can wait for a few years after the last expansion to them..
I think you make reasonable points, but I feel as though you are missing important reasons why they are happening in the first place.
In your musings about the Sentry and Gateway units I think you have skipped the real reason why Gateway units are weak to begin with. It's because of Warpgate negating the defenders advantage of reinforcement time. This negation means that gateway units need to be weak/not cost effective against their same tier equivalents and Sentry is actually what is used to bring them up to par, not the other way round. So if the Sentry and Forcefield are your biggest concern, I would recommend a solution that helps Protoss early game that does not come from the gateway. For example a unit straight from the Robo or Stargate (as in does not require additional tech) that deals splash damage. This way Protoss could be cost effective with a unit that still has to walk all the way across the map and requires more tech than Warpgate, so will be less effective in all-ins.
As for lategame PvZ I don't see much mention of the Broodlord, the reason why Archon toilets are used is because it is so ridiculously difficult to cost efficiently deal with Brood Lord + Infestor. With the introduction of the Swarm Host I seriously think that Brood Lords need to be reworked in some way, if they were changed to a projectile with a bit of an area of effect I think that would be fine as I feel that the broodlings capacity to "bug out" or attract fire of units is too powerful and not very spectator friendly. As it stands Zerg currently gets "free" units from Infestors, Brood Lord AND Swarm hosts, and I really think that is too much. Brood Lings + Infested Terran's are already potentially imbalanced as it is let alone giving Zerg even more free units to play with. So if my proposed change was made I would be happy to have Vortex removed.
HotS is more balanced than WoL ever will be, the game is inherintly broken, and all the units from both games need a complete rework, and some units completely removed from the game entirely.
On October 18 2012 09:45 Thaniri wrote: Blizzard doesn't care. Starcraft can't turn the same profit that WoW did. Blizzard seems to be a company, more than a game producer. They care about maximizing profits, not necessarily making a good game.
Wrath of the lich, cataclysm, diablo 3, many aspects of sc2, and finally mists of pandaria all together combine to prove that blizzard is chasing dollars.
Blizzard needs to FIRST go back to WC3 style battle.net. With the same type of chat, customs games, and profiles, THEN BEGIN TO BALANCE. With the fundamental anti-social aspect of battle.net 0.2, it does not matter how good your game is, because people wont be playing with their friends.
yeah - ever since activision bought blizzard they have just been looking for ways to make more money. Which is kind of ironic since they won't be making any more at the rate they are going. Anyway, great ideas gretorp very interesting read. thanks for taking the time to post this.
Sorry, i dont see how this will fix Protoss. I dont think Protoss needs fixing in the first place, forcefields are cool i dont see a problem at all with them. Some units need to be reworked / removed for sure in HOTS but the centry is not on that list.
Units needed to be tweaked/changed/removed: -Thor -Mothership -BattleCruiser -Widow Mine -Tempest / carrier -> Remove tempest add micro for carrier -Raven (tweaking in numbers) -Infestor (fundell nerf) -Swarmhost -Tank (if you want mech to work in TvP (i want that badly) then this unit needs to change if only in stats)
There are lots of skilled data editors around that can easily put the majority of any proposed changes into a custom melee map for people to try so that we can move beyond mere theorycrafting.
And if you look through the custom map making community, you'll find at least a few map projects that have already attempted to 'take SC2 balance into their own hands.' Some of them have quite radical changes in design and balance compared to standard WoL. And some of them have actually just added the BW to SC2 that many people say will simply fix the game. Granted, many of them are just supposed to be fun and not necessarily balanced or competitive.
That being said, I don't know why the TL community doesn't do something similar and hold its own 'PTR' and get some map makers to do the modding so that we can actually find out whether or not having destructible forcefields, sentries with chrono rift, infestors with consume, raven EMPs and ghost snipe (50 - 25 vs massive) actually accomplishes anything. (get people using that shiny new Arcade tab!)
Maybe, like with Nony's post on carrier micro, an eloquent and elegant demonstration of the things we want will be more effective/efficient in getting Blizzard to consider changes rather than thread after thread after thread of 'mere speculation on design'
I'm a little bit confused. Blizzard developed this game and made a mess of things (as seen through the responses of the vociferous community), but they've been using band-aids to fix issues as opposed to delving deep down into the design to fix their game. There have been a number of posts throughout tl/blizz forums/reddit/etc. that showcase various options Blizzard could take in fixing the game and making it both more viewer and player friendly.
Why hasn't Blizzard been challenged on this point? Or if they have: why has the community let Blizzard respond noncommittally? We have this thread by Gretorp with several fine ideas that focus on core design elements of different races. We have the theorycrafting of ItWhoSpeaks' documentary mini-series on the differences in race mechanics/supply/design between bw and sc2. There is a treasure trove of all these ideas that seem absurd upon first hearing them, but after thinking about the issues and the problems all these people try to resolve, I'm left wondering why we have let this happen?
Browder himself said: he's surprised the community hasn't recreated bw in wol. If I recall correctly, sc2:bw came out sometime in 2010 (strange that....)
Ignoring the issue that obviously the lead developer spends almost no time whatsoever browsing bnet 0.2 and just using it for ladder (which means that he's a bit clueless when it comes to the social aspect the bw/wc3 bnet had that sc2 (and coincidentally d3) don't), I'm wondering why the community hasn't mobilized en mass to create a viable tournament worthy game that corrects all the issues WoL brings to the table while still keeping the game distinct from bw?
WC3 and BW had a phenomenal custom game scene partially because of the community and partially because of bnet. Granted the bnet of yesterday is better than the bnet of today, but the community has grown - has it not?
____________________________________________
tl;dr: I'm confused why the community lets Blizzard dictate how the game should develop when the community consistently comes up with new innovative ideas that tackle the heart of blizz's design errors, and that promote and grow viewer and player experiences for the better.
It's either that they are just not man enough to admit mistakes and make drastic changes, or they are lazy to work and think a warhound is enough to justify two years of supposed R&D.
Very well written post. I must say you tackle all of the serious issues of SCII (except that of the colossus but it can wait for now). Changing FF, buffing gateway units, toning down spell casting, making the raven more useful through EMP and most importantly the ghost change you suggested, it all adds up to a seemingly more interesting game.
I am worried that the current HoTS will be a fancier WoL, not a radical change to what problems WoL has been proven to have. This could be changed, maybe, if the devs take a look at this... maybe...
Basically the anti-mobility skills are far too limiting. I'd agree with that point.
About forcefield - protoss in its current state will get absolutely trashed by both terran and zerg armies in the midgame without forcefield. This is fact. Before the lategame mass AoE of protoss comes out, they actually have trash dps as a whole army, mainly due to stalkers and sentries being ranged units with very low DPS output and high cost.
- Protoss is absolutely reliant on forcefields to survive/attack early/midgame(some exceptions, I know). Remember the early days of SC2, when all terran had to do was stim up your ramp while you weren't looking for a free win?
My proposed solution would be to have forcefields act closer to balloons of a sort. What I mean by this is that units will still attempt to path through forcefields, and instead of being stopped, they are slowed(could be movement only or with minor attack speed slow as well) increasingly as they approach the center of the FF(something like 50%->90%?) and once they hit the center, the forcefield bursts. All units that forcefield is cast upon act as they do currently(pushed aside). Retain a defensive advantage for forcefields, and some of the offensive potential, but there is now potential for counterplay AND being able to force a fight if you reckon your advantage is large enough to go through forcefields, losses be damned.
As for fungal, there are so many suggested fixes for it I don't think I need to add any more.
On October 18 2012 16:11 Razac wrote: Sorry, i dont see how this will fix Protoss. I dont think Protoss needs fixing in the first place, forcefields are cool i dont see a problem at all with them. Some units need to be reworked / removed for sure in HOTS but the centry is not on that list.
Units needed to be tweaked/changed/removed: -Thor -Mothership -BattleCruiser -Widow Mine -Tempest / carrier -> Remove tempest add micro for carrier -Raven (tweaking in numbers) -Infestor (fundell nerf) -Swarmhost -Tank (if you want mech to work in TvP (i want that badly) then this unit needs to change if only in stats)
I find it funny how you think a spell that negates micro from the other player is cool but imagine that you don't like fungel.
Honestly both need to be modified, I would say the thing I miss the most about bw is not having to worry about a unit that prevents my units from moving. I would kill for both spells to be gone and both races balanced to compensate for it. Anti-micro spells are just so boring, I never see forcefields go down and think "oh my god that was so badass", same with fungel I never think "holy shit that was so awesome how he fungeled those units!"
To bad I don't think anything will ever be done about those 2 :/.
My idea is that we should gather some pro players willing to spend their time and that are not fully satisfied with how the game works(i think we can find quite a few considering everybody whines about fungal/ff/coloss/vortex etc.). Discuss the possible changes that could be brought to the game and then ask Blizzard to do closed PTR for those guys to test things out. I don't think it requires a lot from Blizzard resource-wise because most of the changes will be very easy to do(like changing the stats of the units), only changing the idea of forcefield/fungal/other spells can take some time.
While your analysis of Protoss is nice and it does bring up good points, you forget to mention one thing: warpgate, and PvP in particular.
PvP will always be a warpgate-timing fest if you don't allow a single forcefield to fully block off a ramp to prevent a high ground warp-in, as we see on maps like TDA, and as we saw back in the day when you could warp in above the forcefield.
The reason PvP has evolved as much as it has in this last year or so is because 4gates are more easily defendible with greedier opening. If you can defend with a greedier opening, you can go into the midgame with more developed tech, so now we see stuff like blink obs and robo stargate.
Back in the day, teching to two things at once would have been either incredibly dangerous (because modern PvP openings aren't safe vs the older 4gates), or incredibly slow, so by the time the other guy has his one base blink/colossus/phoenix timing ready, you are much much more likely to die.
tl;dr: it's not just sentries that screw up Protoss, it's the combination of sentries and warpgate that do. If you change one you also have to drastically tweak the other in order to not screw PvP up completely.
edit: @Nerchio: as a pro player, do you think it would be worth it to invest time and effort into that PTR, trying to sort out the game's design, instead of pracitcing? I feel like for an actual pro, it would probably not be worth it, and they would rather practice a game that's not as good to keep posting good enough results to "get to the end of the month".
Great analysys about the forcefield and the spell caster role. I don't necessarily agree with the removal of the Mothership ..what about the M.Core's destiny then? You could merge the new unit you mentioned and the M.Core in one unit, but the problem with the Mamaship is called Vortex, not the unit it's self imho. I think Blizzy already got the message about "we want fungal to change". The community voice hasn't been as much loud about forcefield tho, so i really hope they read this thread!
On October 18 2012 17:37 Kaleidos wrote: Great analysys about the forcefield and the spell caster role. I don't necessarily agree with the removal of the Mothership ..what about the M.Core's destiny then? You could merge the new unit you mentioned and the M.Core in one unit, but the problem with the Mamaship is called Vortex, not the unit it's self imho. I think Blizzy already got the message about "we want fungal to change". The community voice hasn't been as much loud about forcefield tho, so i really hope they read this thread!
The problem with a unit like the mothership is that it's either useless (PvT) or completely game breaking to the point where a matchup/situation is balanced around it (PvZ), and it's balanced in a very poor way at that.
what makes you think blizzard will do anything? they haven't done anything in 2 years and HOTS beta indicates they dont want to listen or they dont think it's the right way to go. not saying this or other thread is 100% right or wrong but blizzard has their own way. there've been similar thread before and there will be in the future
On October 18 2012 17:37 Kaleidos wrote: Great analysys about the forcefield and the spell caster role. I don't necessarily agree with the removal of the Mothership ..what about the M.Core's destiny then? You could merge the new unit you mentioned and the M.Core in one unit, but the problem with the Mamaship is called Vortex, not the unit it's self imho. I think Blizzy already got the message about "we want fungal to change". The community voice hasn't been as much loud about forcefield tho, so i really hope they read this thread!
The point is you can do split vs Fungal and there is not many things vs FF that you can do. Sure you can try to flank but all they need is 2 more forcefields. You rely more on your opponent being bad with FF than you being good with anything else. I agree that Fungal is too unforgiving cause if you catch a clump once it almost surely will die. The problem with forcfield is that it stops the agression until you got BLs out which means late game in almost every ZvP.
I totally agree that spell casters are op at the current state of the game. Units just clump up too much making those aoe spells just so much stronger. Lessening their affect would be a great change imo.
Huh, the idea of forcefield being a slow effect rather than pathing block is intriguing to me. Namely because that's something you can balance tweak -- how slow do units move in the forcefield, forcefield effect radius, etc. It's much more malleable than the current binary state of forcefield, where it's either there or it isn't.
While I love the raven/ghost changes you proposed (even though I would be sad to never have seen HSM be incorporated in awsome strategies), I think removing the mothership entirely is to drastic a measure. Mothership is an awsome unit and I think if Vortex wouldn't hit air, the whole problem of archon toilet would have been solved. Think about it, when do you see archon toilet? Most of the time it's to kill brood lord. Since they are so slow, they can't disperse quick enough after an archon toilet and the splash damage from archons is massive.
I'm a Protoss and I love both forcefields and the mothership. I do not consider them broken mechanics. Vortex was never even used until people realized how imbalanced infestor broodlord is without it. Therefore infestor broodlord is what should be tweaked, not the mothership. I love my damn hero unit!!!! As for forcefields it is an unperfectable mechanic. You can do bad, good, great, amazing, and then there's downright impossible stuff like encasing a pack of zerglings that would decimate your army but 5 well placed forcefields and they are all doomed forever. Sure it's relied upon vs the Zerg. And slightly vs the Terran. Vs the Terran they have utility even into the lategame. Vs Zerg not so much, why? You say it's broken Protoss mechanics, I can just as easily make the argument about it being broken Zerg mechanics. I don't know why you don't like guardian shield either. I think it's an amazing spell, and it's interesting to see how often in the lategame it's neglected, where potentially it has the highest amount of usefulness. Lose all your sentries in the midgame, forget to build 2 more for guardian shield. Or you can't, that's a big tradeoff. But anyway point is, while you don't like it. The only race I think these things you speak of are in any way a hindrance or nuisance is in PvZ. And I think the way to go about fixing that isn't by taking out the 2 coolest things in the whole Protoss arsenal, forcefields and mothership.
I don’t see forcefields as game breaking as you make out. Terran gets to repair bunkers, stim then dropships and ultimately ghosts so forcefields in that matchup are fine as they progressively lose their power as the games go on which is a good thing in my opinion. Give Zerg something to help them against forcefields in mid game by giving them something in lair tech because at the moment hydras are useless other than for all ins.
The EMP/feedback dynamic is favoured for protoss in my opinion and blanket EMPing shouldn’t happen unless the protoss is the weaker player. However I do agree that it is unforgiving and a poor engagement will decide the game. This isn’t because of the EMP though more the insane dps of stimmed bio.
I agree with removing fungal though as it ruins late game in all matchups. Mass fungals and mass infested terrans make for a boring late game and when coupled with broodlords are too powerful.
In my opinion Roaches and Marauders are what hurts sc2 unit interactions and makes games uninteresting and should be removed. The units are boring and too strong for their cost, early availability and ease of use.
On October 18 2012 17:37 Kaleidos wrote: Great analysys about the forcefield and the spell caster role. I don't necessarily agree with the removal of the Mothership ..what about the M.Core's destiny then? You could merge the new unit you mentioned and the M.Core in one unit, but the problem with the Mamaship is called Vortex, not the unit it's self imho. I think Blizzy already got the message about "we want fungal to change". The community voice hasn't been as much loud about forcefield tho, so i really hope they read this thread!
The problem with a unit like the mothership is that it's either useless (PvT) or completely game breaking to the point where a matchup/situation is balanced around it (PvZ), and it's balanced in a very poor way at that.
I agree thet the current mothership role is bad for the game, but is not like it Has to have vortex by any god laws. I'm sure they can design better spells for the unit. I think the unit is in the game as a Hero unit because of warpins. Having both warpins and recalls on multiple "arbiters" would be probably too strong.
Even if I don't agree with some of your points I think Blizzard DEFINITELY needs to rethink the fundamental units and spells that currently exist in WoL.
Love to get your insight Gretorp. Hope someone from Blizzard reads this. As their hesitant to change anything except if it's "op" and they know it.
Blizzard doesn't really listen to constructive criticism. And they don't seem to change anything except the new units. Which makes it a lot harder to design the new units because of the old unit's restrictions.
Another thing I don't really understand is why Mothership is in the multiplayer. It is / was a singleplayer unit (story) I understand that Protoss wouldn't stand a chance vs infestor / broodlord etc.
In my opinion this are the units which really needs a revamp / redesign.
Zerg
Infestor (Fungal specifically)but naural is currently pretty useless.
Swarm host ( This unit is basically a ground Broodlord. And micro denial unit.)
Broodlord ( This might not be as critical, But I feel when you HAVE to have this unit lategame in any matchup, it makes the game very boring quickly..)
Protoss
Sentry (you made a better point than I could because I'm just a high masters with toss and play Zerg. So I can't be totally unbiased, but forcefield and guardian shield is a must with Protoss. Which also makes the game boring quickly, and hard to innovate new builds because of it.)
Mothership (Remove from multiplayer all together, Relying on 1 spell lategame for a win/loss is pretty much just bad design.)
Carrier ( Make this unit more microable, or make tempest abit more expensive with some splash? Again, I'm not a Protoss.)
Terran
Widow mine. (This unit seems way to cheap and good vs anything.)
Tank ( Feel like Tanks need something more added to make Mech more viable. But I'm not exactly sure what.)
Thor ( This unit is also a unit which in large numbers, force the opposing player to dedicate to long game where you need t3 to deal with. Which would be okey if Thors wasn't good vs anything T3 except Broodlord. (can also be "decent" vs broodlords if clumped up / paired with alot of vikings.)) I actually want the Thor Removed
Goliath (This would add so much more dynamic gameplay to the race. Where mech could break a contain (mutas etc) in the early game to put pressure back on the other race.)
Again, this is just my opinion as a Programmer (not educated game designer but did make a Warcraft TD flash game when I was 14 with my dad. and made a few Mobile Games for Android / ios)
Then again making a few mobile games doesn't make me a game designer/balancer, but I've played the Starcraft series pretty much all my life (along with other RTS games). And I feel like I get the general idea of what might make the game more dynamic as well as fun.
On October 18 2012 18:04 jworld wrote: I don’t see forcefields as game breaking as you make out. Terran gets to repair bunkers, stim then dropships and ultimately ghosts so forcefields in that matchup are fine as they progressively lose their power as the games go on which is a good thing in my opinion. Give Zerg something to help them against forcefields in mid game by giving them something in lair tech because at the moment hydras are useless other than for all ins.
The EMP/feedback dynamic is favoured for protoss in my opinion and blanket EMPing shouldn’t happen unless the protoss is the weaker player. However I do agree that it is unforgiving and a poor engagement will decide the game. This isn’t because of the EMP though more the insane dps of stimmed bio.
I agree with removing fungal though as it ruins late game in all matchups. Mass fungals and mass infested terrans make for a boring late game and when coupled with broodlords are too powerful.
In my opinion Roaches and Marauders are what hurts sc2 unit interactions and makes games uninteresting and should be removed. The units are boring and too strong for their cost, early availability and ease of use.
You don't get it.
Forcefields "force" terrible maps because on interesting Maps with many chokes and stuff they become totally imbalanced.
Yes, for Protoss it feels awesome to have set nice Forcefields (so do Fungals for Zerg or an EMP carpet for Terran). Yes, atm Protoss needs them (like Z needs Fungal and Terran needs EMP), but that could/should be fixed to make the game better as a whole.
The mechanic itself (for all these) aren't even bad, but they should be nowhere near as dominating as they are now. Especially Forcefield could be pretty cool if it would be something that you can only use very sparsely, it should not be the thing that everything Protoss early -> mid revolves around.
On October 18 2012 17:37 Kaleidos wrote: Great analysys about the forcefield and the spell caster role. I don't necessarily agree with the removal of the Mothership ..what about the M.Core's destiny then? You could merge the new unit you mentioned and the M.Core in one unit, but the problem with the Mamaship is called Vortex, not the unit it's self imho. I think Blizzy already got the message about "we want fungal to change". The community voice hasn't been as much loud about forcefield tho, so i really hope they read this thread!
The problem with a unit like the mothership is that it's either useless (PvT) or completely game breaking to the point where a matchup/situation is balanced around it (PvZ), and it's balanced in a very poor way at that.
I agree thet the current mothership role is bad for the game, but is not like it Has to have vortex by any god laws. I'm sure they can design better spells for the unit. I think the unit is in the game as a Hero unit because of warpins. Having both warpins and recalls on multiple "arbiters" would be probably too strong.
Having a single unit of a kind available means that the game is either balanced when it is in play, or when it isn't. In the first case it's gamebreaking, in the second it's useless. It's pretty much impossible to find a middle ground (see lategame pvz)
Rebalance Protoss. Make forcefield a slow rather than an object. Empower the stalker and zealot a bit more. Along with the Immortal. Now you can actually incorpoarte a 3-4 range mid tier unit in HotS that can add to the ball since protoss needs a buff at larger supplies.
Make fungal growth a slight slow, but an attack speed slow as well. DOT as well and non instant/slower than EMP. EMP is off of ghosts. It shouldn't be a standard, it should be a luxury at higher tier similar to Science Vessels. Remove HSM and put EMP on Raven. Therefore, rework Ghost to have slightly higher DPS or ability to plant widow mines. This will make Ghosts not such a pigeonhole unit where they just emp and die. Now they support with DPS and spacing/positioning.
Take out Mothership altogether. Replace back with unit that can do cloaking field. This will be a main way Protoss can defend expos since you can make multiple at high gas cost. Will be balanced based on new Protoss .
On October 18 2012 18:04 jworld wrote: I don’t see forcefields as game breaking as you make out. Terran gets to repair bunkers, stim then dropships and ultimately ghosts so forcefields in that matchup are fine as they progressively lose their power as the games go on which is a good thing in my opinion. Give Zerg something to help them against forcefields in mid game by giving them something in lair tech because at the moment hydras are useless other than for all ins.
The EMP/feedback dynamic is favoured for protoss in my opinion and blanket EMPing shouldn’t happen unless the protoss is the weaker player. However I do agree that it is unforgiving and a poor engagement will decide the game. This isn’t because of the EMP though more the insane dps of stimmed bio.
I agree with removing fungal though as it ruins late game in all matchups. Mass fungals and mass infested terrans make for a boring late game and when coupled with broodlords are too powerful.
In my opinion Roaches and Marauders are what hurts sc2 unit interactions and makes games uninteresting and should be removed. The units are boring and too strong for their cost, early availability and ease of use.
You don't get it.
Forcefields "force" terrible maps because on interesting Maps with many chokes and stuff they become totally imbalanced.
Yes, for Protoss it feels awesome to have set nice Forcefields (so do Fungals for Zerg or an EMP carpet for Terran). Yes, atm Protoss needs them (like Z needs Fungal and Terran needs EMP), but that could/should be fixed to make the game better as a whole.
The mechanic itself (for all these) aren't even bad, but they should be nowhere near as dominating as they are now. Especially Forcefield could be pretty cool if it would be something that you can only use very sparsely, it should not be the thing that everything Protoss early -> mid revolves around.
I think its an interesting spell that takes skill to use. Zerg just needs the tools to deal with it. You can still have chokes in maps if the other races have tools to deal with the forcefields. Maybe Zerg should get a move to abduct their own units to pull them back to their side of the forcefields or something. I think the problem is one races susceptibility to the spell.
HSM is fine imo. You need quit some research and it kosts 125 ennergy. On the other hand FFs and Fungel cost less and they are already worth their costs when they spawn, so you can count on them earlier on.
While I'm in favor of a complete redesign, even small changes along this vein might be instructive, and then we can make more small changes.
For instance, with the mothership core, Protoss now has an easier time defending. So they need sentries less to not die than they did before. Let's try making Force Field cost 75 energy. Just, see how that works.
Then, perhaps, more buffs to gateway units at Twilight Tech. I'd like to see some kind of "Undying Fury" type ability for zealots, where they could stay alive at 0 HP for a few seconds. Tank a bit more, get another hit in, actually contribute to battles.
Make Carriers micro like in BW, and rework the Mothership a bit.
And then just kind of see where we are. And from there, we can make further changes, hopefully in the direction Gretorp wants, or in another direction if Gretorp's wrong (I know he's really smart, but this is complicated!).
If nothing else, a series of small changes adding up to a rework of Protoss is probably an easier sell to Blizz than "scrap the sentry and start over".
Some great Ideas and observations overall. But when it comes to balance Blizzard uses statistics from all the Ladders and from Major Tournaments. As long as all the matchup's are balanced (win/loss ratio) they consider it balanced. That's why i suggested #SaveHOTS that Blizzard creates a Task Force to use this vast resource called the community to collect idea's or shed some light on Issues that they might not have thought on their own.
It really hurts to see that Battlenet 2.0 to make it so hard to join a clan or to feel some sort of belonging, not to have a detailed Profile and being so limited on your Name. And ofcourse the death of Custom Games. It hurts all the more when I think how they did everything right in the past (BW, WC3)
Back to the basics would be my wish. LAN atleast for tournaments. It's such a pain to have laggs when the best of the best compete and theres a huge spike in a main engagement...unbearable for me as a fan.
Give forcefield to the mothership core, but only if it's within a certain range of a nexus. This would mean that protosses would no longer have to rely on forcefield offensively, but still be able to defend against baneling all ins and such. Since you can only get one mothership core, the energy cost would need to be lowered to 25. Maybe it could drain energy from a nexus to get more forcefields in an emergency.
With swarm hosts in HotS, the design of the broodlord seems redundant, not to mention how it ruins late game ZvP or even super late game ZvZ (Scarlett vs Miya, anyone?). To solve this, I suggest we look to a BW unit; the Devourer. The devourer had an attack called "acid spores", which clinged to a unit and slowed its attack speed down, and made the unit take more damage from each following hit. With an attack like this, we could remove broodlings from broodlords and still have it be a powerful unit (although the name wouldn't make much sense anymore). This would of course require a change/removal of vortex, and possibly some stats buffs to the broodlord itself.
Make warpgate require twilight council, OR make it really expensive, like 200/200 or something like that. The removal of sentry forcefield would mean that zealots and stalkers would have to be buffed, but that would make early warpgate pushes a real problem. Warpgate is such a powerful ability that it should be a real investment to get it, not just a brainless auto research as soon as your cyber core finishes. The buff to gateway units would possibly mean that we could nerf collosi as well, which would only be good for the game, especially PvP!
On October 18 2012 16:11 Razac wrote: Sorry, i dont see how this will fix Protoss. I dont think Protoss needs fixing in the first place, forcefields are cool i dont see a problem at all with them. Some units need to be reworked / removed for sure in HOTS but the centry is not on that list.
Units needed to be tweaked/changed/removed: -Thor -Mothership -BattleCruiser -Widow Mine -Tempest / carrier -> Remove tempest add micro for carrier -Raven (tweaking in numbers) -Infestor (fundell nerf) -Swarmhost -Tank (if you want mech to work in TvP (i want that badly) then this unit needs to change if only in stats)
I find it funny how you think a spell that negates micro from the other player is cool but imagine that you don't like fungel.
Honestly both need to be modified, I would say the thing I miss the most about bw is not having to worry about a unit that prevents my units from moving. I would kill for both spells to be gone and both races balanced to compensate for it. Anti-micro spells are just so boring, I never see forcefields go down and think "oh my god that was so badass", same with fungel I never think "holy shit that was so awesome how he fungeled those units!"
To bad I don't think anything will ever be done about those 2 :/.
Fundle can be dodged by splitting bio in TvZ or blinking in PvZ, it actually forces micro. Anyhow same for ForceFields, I don’t see how FF stops one from micoring? It actually forces more Micro... So besides the fact that both ability's use energy I don’t see much similarity’s. Fundle is imo just to strong, the 100% root makes it so any mismicro can be easaly punished.
I personally love watching people throw down amazing forcefields, but you are right in that FFare so essential for allot of build/strats it does narrow down the valid strategy’s.
As much as I agree on most of things you said I know that Blizzard can't/won't change fundamentals of Protoss race. Rebalancing one race from scratch isn't an option on that stage of developing.
About the casters I belive it is easier to fix, AI in sc2 plus faster speed of the game then BW makes late game battles ALL ABOUT spellcasters. Also those units should focus more on defensive/support abilities as guardian's shield/pdd/transfusion rather then blanket EMPs, melting bio with storms or fungal growth which is abomination becouse of neglecting whole idea of micro.
Why are terran matchups consider the best to watch? They are consisted of most micro/multitasking from of all of the races. Terran race gains most from those things thus making it excited to watch/play.
On October 18 2012 18:04 jworld wrote: I don’t see forcefields as game breaking as you make out. Terran gets to repair bunkers, stim then dropships and ultimately ghosts so forcefields in that matchup are fine as they progressively lose their power as the games go on which is a good thing in my opinion. Give Zerg something to help them against forcefields in mid game by giving them something in lair tech because at the moment hydras are useless other than for all ins.
The EMP/feedback dynamic is favoured for protoss in my opinion and blanket EMPing shouldn’t happen unless the protoss is the weaker player. However I do agree that it is unforgiving and a poor engagement will decide the game. This isn’t because of the EMP though more the insane dps of stimmed bio.
I agree with removing fungal though as it ruins late game in all matchups. Mass fungals and mass infested terrans make for a boring late game and when coupled with broodlords are too powerful.
In my opinion Roaches and Marauders are what hurts sc2 unit interactions and makes games uninteresting and should be removed. The units are boring and too strong for their cost, early availability and ease of use.
You don't get it.
Forcefields "force" terrible maps because on interesting Maps with many chokes and stuff they become totally imbalanced.
Yes, for Protoss it feels awesome to have set nice Forcefields (so do Fungals for Zerg or an EMP carpet for Terran). Yes, atm Protoss needs them (like Z needs Fungal and Terran needs EMP), but that could/should be fixed to make the game better as a whole.
The mechanic itself (for all these) aren't even bad, but they should be nowhere near as dominating as they are now. Especially Forcefield could be pretty cool if it would be something that you can only use very sparsely, it should not be the thing that everything Protoss early -> mid revolves around.
I think its an interesting spell that takes skill to use. Zerg just needs the tools to deal with it. You can still have chokes in maps if the other races have tools to deal with the forcefields. Maybe Zerg should get a move to abduct their own units to pull them back to their side of the forcefields or something. I think the problem is one races susceptibility to the spell.
No? If any race is getting fucked by it, it's Protoss itself and the whole design of the race.
Abduct their own Units? Well.. Interesting.. Please show me how you implement that in the first 5-6 minutes of the game. Forcefields totally shot down early agression on maps with small chokes, which is bad and thats more than enough of a reason to get rid of it or alter it significantly. It also does not really allow for maps with long "small" corridors. ... It also gets useless later in the game when massive Untis or Airunits dominate... So the design makes itself obsolet during the game... It's just a bad spell for the game.
I like your writeup! I agree on FF and Mothership, but Blizzard will never change FF I think!
Mothership as hero unit is so lame and boring to watch! The whole vortex spell is so game deciding ... Maybe we can try to convince Blizzard about this
Another incredibly insightful post, I swear I'm seeing more of these recently. The changes you wrote look great for SC2, I personally think P is the worst designed race although I do find PvP incredibly exciting as there is none of the whole NR 10/FE business. (TvZ is a brilliant match up)
Most of all I wish Blizzard would just listen! Why haven't they, after two years, added clan support, normal chat channels and everything else from Bnet 1.0? It just makes no sense.
Very good post, i support everything gretorp suggests.
Guys you have to remember there is no way to make a perfect game, even if you make a big reform on sc2 there will be some not so good things, but what is important to move in the right direction.
And lets be honest, everyone and there dog know's that forcefield and warpgate mecanic are big issue's with sc2, gretorp makes a thoughtfull reasonable suggestion that would obviously not make sc2 perfect but it would move the game into the proper direction i think.
Great post. The ultimate TL:DR for PvZ, PvT, ZvT and to an extent ZvZ is that it's like 100 question quiz of 99 1-point questions followed up by a 100 point question.
Right now, with Diablo getting resurge and HoTS having a beta, I imagine they might be using their resources to the fullest.
But my humble opinion is that there should ALWAYS be something being tested on PTR, even if very few people go to play it (hell, that makes it less of a problem since it's not as resource heavy). If you think that the game is perfect, and not even an intern has any ideas - fucking ask your UPS guy. And if he answers "it needs delivery vans", you add motherfucking delivery vans, and see what happens.
And before it comes to this: lower burst damage; less clumping up settings, BW carriers, hellions with spider mines - there'd be months of stuff to be tested even if just to say "hey - we tried!".
Awesome post. I have always argued that forcefield is a bad mechanic and that it should be removed/changed drastically. Alas, it seems like Blizzard is not willing to put in the effort needed to make this game as good as possible.
I actually had a thought off of the top of my mind. Perhaps forcefields should create a field that you take damage through if you move through it? Make it impossible to cast on top of units to remove it's function as an assault spell. It would make defense against early aggression conceivable in a way that I don't think a slow spell would as a slowing spell wouldn't do much against static defenses anyway. And static defenses is what makes P survive against Z early/early mid game with the FFE.
Then it would be a choice by opposing players if they want to move through the forcefields and take some damage or hold off until they disappear again. Perhaps it could be added to a slow spell, bonus damage could be added or removed and duration/damage would be tweakable.
No more hero unit please. The reason for hero unit is because having more than one would be too good. And having none (currently in WoL) the game wouldn't be balance. Then is the game balance with the hero unit (mothership pvz)? No, it is simply a stupid fix to game design issue. If you have to have that only one unit to balance the game, then clearly something is wrong.
Current PvZ super late game is can Protoss get in a good position and get that vortex off, if not, fall back try again. P.S. I play Terran. Take my comment with a giant salt block, but this is what I see in pro PvZ.
What about adding more early game counters to sentries? Such as.... ground siege units?
TvP: Tanks ARE good counters to sentries, but due to the problem with chargelots and immortals, tanks only seem to work in 1base/2base play. If you can make tanks slightly more useful TvP (due to battle hellions?) wouldnt the importance of sentries be lower? TvZ: Swarm host? Wont swarm host be a pretty good counter to sentries?
Isnt swarm host and buffed tanks TvP a step in the right direction?
On a different note, I agree P needs the biggest overhaul. Hero units doesnt really like that good of an idea. Maybe if you nerfed them and gave all races one each so that they could be balanced around it and that the hero unit would add that little extra strength to your army? Right now, Mothership is anything but a little extra strength.
Also I think P could really use a different defensive mechanic other than FFs early game. Mothership core might or might not fill that role, we'll see. But I dont like how invinible Ps are at ramps due to FFs, but at the same time how non-existant their defenders advantage is once FFs are taken out of the picture. The lastis mostly a PvP issue since blink negates FFs, Colo negates FF, warpin makes attacking easier. All three things clearly being a parge part in why PvP looks as it does, defending is just too god damn hard. Another defensive mechanic which would allow games to go on longer is needed. FFs early game is either a "lolol I have 1/3 your army and you still cant kill me" or its complete trash once negated.
I completely agree on everything in this post. I think current changes in HOTS dont adress any of the problems we are having .. hell I even think they are embracing the problems with protoss (oracle)
On October 18 2012 09:32 Glon wrote: I think that, more than anything, we should be trying to get blizzard to simply LISTEN more than just propose changes. You're skipping a step -- we can tell blizzard EXACTLY how to balance the game, and they likely wouldn't do shit.
Maybe some kind of weekly "meetings" with blizzard balancers and select people in the community? Pros/casters preferably
they are listening, and any sweeping changes to WOL units will be done further into the beta.
"take what i say with a grain of salt, make your own decisions and form your own opinions"
On October 18 2012 18:04 jworld wrote: Give Zerg something to help them against forcefields in mid game by giving them something in lair tech because at the moment hydras are useless other than for all ins.
I agree with your sentiment that zerg should have some counter play to force fields other than the gimmicky burrow movement roach. I see almost everyone calling for a nerf to force-field but what about making some super strong answer for zerg. We need to consider fighting OP with OP.
On October 18 2012 18:04 jworld wrote: I don’t see forcefields as game breaking as you make out. Terran gets to repair bunkers, stim then dropships and ultimately ghosts so forcefields in that matchup are fine as they progressively lose their power as the games go on which is a good thing in my opinion. Give Zerg something to help them against forcefields in mid game by giving them something in lair tech because at the moment hydras are useless other than for all ins.
The EMP/feedback dynamic is favoured for protoss in my opinion and blanket EMPing shouldn’t happen unless the protoss is the weaker player. However I do agree that it is unforgiving and a poor engagement will decide the game. This isn’t because of the EMP though more the insane dps of stimmed bio.
I agree with removing fungal though as it ruins late game in all matchups. Mass fungals and mass infested terrans make for a boring late game and when coupled with broodlords are too powerful.
In my opinion Roaches and Marauders are what hurts sc2 unit interactions and makes games uninteresting and should be removed. The units are boring and too strong for their cost, early availability and ease of use.
You don't get it.
Forcefields "force" terrible maps because on interesting Maps with many chokes and stuff they become totally imbalanced.
Yes, for Protoss it feels awesome to have set nice Forcefields (so do Fungals for Zerg or an EMP carpet for Terran). Yes, atm Protoss needs them (like Z needs Fungal and Terran needs EMP), but that could/should be fixed to make the game better as a whole.
The mechanic itself (for all these) aren't even bad, but they should be nowhere near as dominating as they are now. Especially Forcefield could be pretty cool if it would be something that you can only use very sparsely, it should not be the thing that everything Protoss early -> mid revolves around.
I think its an interesting spell that takes skill to use. Zerg just needs the tools to deal with it. You can still have chokes in maps if the other races have tools to deal with the forcefields. Maybe Zerg should get a move to abduct their own units to pull them back to their side of the forcefields or something. I think the problem is one races susceptibility to the spell.
No? If any race is getting fucked by it, it's Protoss itself and the whole design of the race.
Abduct their own Units? Well.. Interesting.. Please show me how you implement that in the first 5-6 minutes of the game. Forcefields totally shot down early agression on maps with small chokes, which is bad and thats more than enough of a reason to get rid of it or alter it significantly. It also does not really allow for maps with long "small" corridors. ... It also gets useless later in the game when massive Untis or Airunits dominate... So the design makes itself obsolet during the game... It's just a bad spell for the game.
It should be obselete during lategame as its a early game low tech unit. It gives protoss potent attack timings and allows them to defend if they choose to expand and play management style. Also protoss dont attack during the first 5 mins they ffe so i dont get your point with that
When I'm thinking about the removal of the ForceField und buffing Gate-Units there is an idea in my mind: What about giving the sentry an ability compared with a moving shield generator. Healing Shields of Gateway Units. Would be usefull whole Game long.
On October 18 2012 20:46 ChrisCologne wrote: What about giving the sentry an ability compared with a moving shield generator. Healing Shields of Gateway Units. Would be usefull whole Game long.
I definitely agree with Gretorp, that some of the spells are just too strong and come into play too early. Even though I don't really like the "In SC:BW..." arguments, I'm still gonna do it myself, because let's face it, SC:BW was a much better designed RTS.
In SC:BW, the only spells that "removed micro" were Arbiter "Stasis Field" and Queen "Ensnare" (check Liquipedia for more info). Both were much later in the tech tree (tier 2.5 - 3), while as in SC2, sentries are tier1.5 and infestors tier2. You also needed to research both spells so it pushed back their effect even further into the late game. Both had their usages, but they weren't necessarily the reason you got the units in the first place. Your play wasn't totally revolving around those spells, as is in the case of forcefields and fungals, and the spell effects weren't as powerful (e.g. Esnare only slowed units and their rate of fire, spells were still usable, unlike with fungal). Gameplay was more focused on macro, army positioning and unit micro, not "spell micro". This let the players play their game, instead of hoping the opponent messed up his.
On October 18 2012 09:32 Glon wrote: I think that, more than anything, we should be trying to get blizzard to simply LISTEN more than just propose changes. You're skipping a step -- we can tell blizzard EXACTLY how to balance the game, and they likely wouldn't do shit.
Maybe some kind of weekly "meetings" with blizzard balancers and select people in the community? Pros/casters preferably
They have already done these "meetings" while ago before the beta was released WhiteRa posted a picture with David Kim and some other protosses and the picture text was like "Discussing problems with protoss with David Kim" or something like that.
Instead of having the sentry be it's own unit, make it a 1 supply augmenting-unit, kind of an upgrade for the stalker, that requires a stalker to attach itself to. So there's a mini sentry, maybe 1/3 of the size, floating around the stalkers head. It will keep range 5 attack, but always float within 1 range of the stalkers head, equalizing their firing range. This also gives the stalker gaurdian shield and hallucination abilities, but remove force fields. The sentry just auto fires so you only have to micro the stalker. In order to augment your stalker it requires warpgate tech. While the stalker's in pylon range it can use its "sentry augment" ability and warp in the sentry above it's head which also uses one gateway warpin. Once warped in they are one unit (die together).
Well... So you propose to nerf spells, especially AOE spells, and remove the last bits of micro remaining while encouraging death balls? So you would like to see death balls a moving into death balls and that's it?
On October 18 2012 21:53 Alex1Sun wrote: Well... So you propose to nerf spells, especially AOE spells, and remove the last bits of micro remaining while encouraging death balls? So you would like to see death balls a moving into death balls and that's it?
Don't know if your trolling or not, But That's pretty much exactly the opposite of what Gretorp said.. He wan't to remove / Alter spells that negate Micro. (among other things)
Now you can actually incorpoarte a 3-4 range mid tier unit in HotS that can add to the ball since protoss needs a buff at larger supplies.
Are you serious? You want to ADD to the deathball instead of taking away from it? Also lategame Protoss needs a nerf if anything, I think many Terrans agree that TvP lategame is ridiculous.
On October 18 2012 09:35 GolemMadness wrote: A lot of good stuff, but I think a major issue is going to be just how protoss will deal with broodlords without vortex.
Corsairs
O.o do you even realize how damn long it would take a Corsair to kill a BL??? Unless every single BL was stacked like mutas in BW the entire time of attacking, to kill BL's with Corsairs it would take until LotV came up to finish one late game....
Way to talk out of your ass, 49 hits to kill a muta vs 57 to kill a BL, what a HUGE difference, and a BL costs several times as much as a muta.
On October 18 2012 09:35 GolemMadness wrote: A lot of good stuff, but I think a major issue is going to be just how protoss will deal with broodlords without vortex.
Corsairs
O.o do you even realize how damn long it would take a Corsair to kill a BL??? Unless every single BL was stacked like mutas in BW the entire time of attacking, to kill BL's with Corsairs it would take until LotV came up to finish one late game....
Way to talk out of your ass, 49 hits to kill a muta vs 57 to kill a BL, what a HUGE difference, and a BL costs several times as much as a muta.
I think your math is way off, it was something like 25 hits to kill a muta both with 0-0. I'm pretty sure broodlords have 1 base armour as well, and they don't clump like muta. Also brood lords have almost double the health.
On October 18 2012 09:35 GolemMadness wrote: A lot of good stuff, but I think a major issue is going to be just how protoss will deal with broodlords without vortex.
Corsairs
O.o do you even realize how damn long it would take a Corsair to kill a BL??? Unless every single BL was stacked like mutas in BW the entire time of attacking, to kill BL's with Corsairs it would take until LotV came up to finish one late game....
Way to talk out of your ass, 49 hits to kill a muta vs 57 to kill a BL, what a HUGE difference, and a BL costs several times as much as a muta.
I think that the gentleman is saying that you are not comparing apples with apples. Corsairs were effective in BW because of how unit pathing worked (near impossible to keep mutas spread). In SC2, however, it's a standard feature ("magic box"). A corsair's role in SC2 would be to punish players for not spreading, not to serve as primary AtA (same as Thor currently).
57 hits to kill a BL (just one) - sorry but your ground army all died 20 hits ago. ;-)
On October 18 2012 22:03 Maxyim wrote: Anyone else think it's strange that storm carpet has 0 mention in the OP?
Yeah I was reading him complain about carpet EMPs, about HSMs, and then you would think he would get to the mother of all AOE damage spells, the storm. But apparently that one isn't a problem.
Also to repeat what others said, mines from ghosts are a bad idea imo. I tought there main goal was mech support, of course you can still use it also with for example bio. But if you first have to go to heaviest bio tech to get mines I can assure you it wont help mech when it needs the help. (By the time you can spare the time/resources to get ghosts in sufficient high number to start making significant mine fields the mines start to lose their usefulness).
Nice writeup, I agree with most of it. I'd trade forcefield and vortex for something more microable but, if done correctly, stronger any day. Both in terms of watching and playing entertainment.
On October 18 2012 09:35 GolemMadness wrote: A lot of good stuff, but I think a major issue is going to be just how protoss will deal with broodlords without vortex.
Corsairs
O.o do you even realize how damn long it would take a Corsair to kill a BL??? Unless every single BL was stacked like mutas in BW the entire time of attacking, to kill BL's with Corsairs it would take until LotV came up to finish one late game....
Way to talk out of your ass, 49 hits to kill a muta vs 57 to kill a BL, what a HUGE difference, and a BL costs several times as much as a muta.
I think that the gentleman is saying that you are not comparing apples with apples. Corsairs were effective in BW because of how unit pathing worked (near impossible to keep mutas spread). In SC2, however, it's a standard feature ("magic box"). A corsair's role in SC2 would be to punish players for not spreading, not to serve as primary AtA (same as Thor currently).
57 hits to kill a BL (just one) - sorry but your ground army all died 20 hits ago. ;-)
Yea this is pretty much what I meant in a more detailed form. I was going to reply back to him... but it seems like your post and the one above it summed up all my thoughts nicely
I agree with the OP! The analysis is correct! We need to be logical, polite, but very vocal so blizzard can understand this issue. They are hesitant to make these changes because of the re-balancing needed but SOME major changes are needed!
On October 18 2012 22:03 Maxyim wrote: Anyone else think it's strange that storm carpet has 0 mention in the OP?
Carpet storms don't happen unless you make several bad choices, such as allowing a zealot with ht flank happen, or you move command your army into theirs.
As far as I know, Gretorp is a Terran main player, I am too, but I'll tell you straight up that carpet storms are NOT a problem and they are one of the more 'correct' ways spells should be (storm highest dps, no cc effects). Carpet EMPs are a death sentence against toss (no ff's, half health units) compared to storms against a mara heavy army, which is invariably supported by medivacs that will negate that damage over time, so allowing EMP to be on a Raven allows new 'interesting' openings for terran instead of the boring mass rax medivac viking builds today, you'll see more sky terran because EMP is available on a flier, etc.
On October 18 2012 22:03 Maxyim wrote: Anyone else think it's strange that storm carpet has 0 mention in the OP?
Carpet storms don't happen unless you make several bad choices, such as allowing a zealot with ht flank happen, or you move command your army into theirs.
As far as I know, Gretorp is a Terran main player, I am too, but I'll tell you straight up that carpet storms are NOT a problem and they are one of the more 'correct' ways spells should be (storm highest dps, no cc effects). Carpet EMPs are a death sentence against toss (no ff's, half health units) compared to storms against a mara heavy army, which is invariably supported by medivacs that will negate that damage over time, so allowing EMP to be on a Raven allows new 'interesting' openings for terran instead of the boring mass rax medivac viking builds today, you'll see more sky terran because EMP is available on a flier, etc.
tl;dr storm carpet really not a problem imo
Not correct, you can run away from EMP and shields recharge in no time. If the terran forces you to engage, then EMPs, then you did not FB fast enough. Also, it has a very small radius. I am not saying that EMP blanket is not a problem, but it is silly to say that the same does not apply to storm, which does its permanent damage extremely fast and basically instagibs bio / clumped air.
I love the idea of taking EMP away from ghosts. I always thought it was an odd thing to have on the ghost, not bad just an interesting replacement from the Science Vessel to a bio unit.
There's no point in wasting time, from SC2 release many of us tried to criticize blizzard and propose some alternatives to colossi/deathball and all stupid boring WOL mechanics... but blizzard never listened.
They won't listen this time also, HOTS will exit, they will sell around 3 millions copies but 90% of them will probably stop playing after 1 month or so... like D3 example.
On October 18 2012 22:03 Maxyim wrote: Anyone else think it's strange that storm carpet has 0 mention in the OP?
Carpet storms don't happen unless you make several bad choices, such as allowing a zealot with ht flank happen, or you move command your army into theirs.
As far as I know, Gretorp is a Terran main player, I am too, but I'll tell you straight up that carpet storms are NOT a problem and they are one of the more 'correct' ways spells should be (storm highest dps, no cc effects). Carpet EMPs are a death sentence against toss (no ff's, half health units) compared to storms against a mara heavy army, which is invariably supported by medivacs that will negate that damage over time, so allowing EMP to be on a Raven allows new 'interesting' openings for terran instead of the boring mass rax medivac viking builds today, you'll see more sky terran because EMP is available on a flier, etc.
tl;dr storm carpet really not a problem imo
Not correct, you can run away from EMP and shields recharge in no time. If the terran forces you to engage, then EMPs, then you did not FB fast enough. Also, it has a very small radius. I am not saying that EMP blanket is not a problem, but it is silly to say that the same does not apply to storm, which does its permanent damage extremely fast and basically instagibs bio / clumped air.
your kinda missing the point. This isn't about balance. THis is about getting punished for a ½ second mistake. Storm is slightly more forgiving to play against than emp. It's true that one bad storm and your army is damaged, and the toss could counterattack you and kill you. BUt that problem is probably more reltated to the design of the warp gate which neglects defenders advantage.
Therefore, rework Ghost to have slightly higher DPS or ability to plant widow mines. This will make Ghosts not such a pigeonhole unit where they just emp and die. Now they support with DPS and spacing/positioning.
That is quite possibly the worst idea I've ever seen.
I'm glad to see that we finally have a thread that encourages constructive discussion on HOTS instead of whining and bashing and one that isn't filled "the world is ending" comments. The way that HOTS is shaping up needs to be discussed without all of the "Starcraft 2 is dying" bull in the way. <3 Gretorp for creating a better place to have those discussions and for being willing to put his own ideas out there as the first step. This is a much better and more positive way of talking about this stuff than Destiny's thread.
This thread represents everything that is wrong with the gaming scene nowadays. The consumers demand to be heard. It is this that destroys franchises, not the corporations wish to make money. You can whine and complain as much as you want about how Blizzard turned into an arrogant game developer that does not listen, and are completely ignorant to consumer feedback (which they are not). They still have MUCH more experience in designing, creating, and balancing games than anyone in this thread with MAYBE an exception or two. So for the love of God, cut them some slack. Blizzard has delivered so many times, it is revolting to see this lack of faith. Most of the mistakes they make are because of their attempt to please the masses, which will never achieve the best possible result, because the average person is actually not that bright.
Remember all those games that blew you away? That were so innovating and fresh they made your jaw drop in awe? Odds are you never tried to influence how that game would turn out. Odds are you TRUSTED the developer to deliver a good game. Odds are it took you by surprise, because you did not have a list of what YOU wanted in the game.
Now, I am not saying that the SC2 team at Blizzard is perfect, but they are damn far from as incompetent as many of you paint them out to be. In most cases Blizzard delivers, and sitting here reading post upon post about how broken SC2 is, is fucking infuriating. Many of you are so obscenely focused on finding something negative to point out that you are no longer capable of even enjoying the game, being caught up in your crusade to change the game into your own liking. Many of you are so obscenely focused on whining that in lack of something to actually complain about you just jump on the bandwagon, completely clueless as to what you are actually advocating. That being said, there are off course a lot of good ideas, and well thought through feedback. Sadly much of it disappears in the ocean of near aggressive complaints.
I am going to have to stop here. I could go on and on about the problems with forums, and consumer feedback, so I will leave you with this. Do not forget what brought you to the game to begin with. What made you spend hours playing. What gave you all the entertainment you undoubtedly have had. Do not forget that when it all boils down, every game designer and programmer do what they do because they love games, and because they want to create something that will be appreciated and enjoyed.
On October 19 2012 00:05 DarkSeth wrote: This thread represents everything that is wrong with the gaming scene nowadays. The consumers demand to be heard. It is this that destroys franchises, not the corporations wish to make money. You can whine and complain as much as you want about how Blizzard turned into an arrogant game developer that does not listen, and are completely ignorant to consumer feedback (which they are not). They still have MUCH more experience in designing, creating, and balancing games than anyone in this thread with MAYBE an exception or two. So for the love of God, cut them some slack. Blizzard has delivered so many times, it is revolting to see this lack of faith. Most of the mistakes they make are because of their attempt to please the masses, which will never achieve the best possible result, because the average person is actually not that bright.
Remember all those games that blew you away? That were so innovating and fresh they made your jaw drop in awe? Odds are you never tried to influence how that game would turn out. Odds are you TRUSTED the developer to deliver a good game. Odds are it took you by surprise, because you did not have a list of what YOU wanted in the game.
Now, I am not saying that the SC2 team at Blizzard is perfect, but they are damn far from as incompetent as many of you paint them out to be. In most cases Blizzard delivers, and sitting here reading post upon post about how broken SC2 is, is fucking infuriating. Many of you are so obscenely focused on finding something negative to point out that you are no longer capable of even enjoying the game, being caught up in your crusade to change the game into your own liking. Many of you are so obscenely focused on whining that in lack of something to actually complain about you just jump on the bandwagon, completely clueless as to what you are actually advocating. That being said, there are off course a lot of good ideas, and well thought through feedback. Sadly much of it disappears in the ocean of near aggressive complaints.
I am going to have to stop here. I could go on and on about the problems with forums, and consumer feedback, so I will leave you with this. Do not forget what brought you to the game to begin with. What made you spend hours playing. What gave you all the entertainment you undoubtedly have had. Do not forget that when it all boils down, every game designer and programmer do what they do because they love games, and because they want to create something that will be appreciated and enjoyed.
i agree that one of the major destructive forces in modern creative industries is the 'community relations' crap.
when in our history has a collective of people created anything actually innovative ?
the power of communities is what they do with an idea/tool once they are given it
Wow, I would love to play your starcraft two, amazing post, hope they listen.I would love to hear a reply from them to you on this post. How can you not respond to a player/spectator of your caliber? If they respond can you please put it in original post, I'mso despritly want to hear their response to your thoughts
As a Protoss I totally agree. I hate making sentries as I feel that force fields simply aren't fun. Being forced to sit in my base and use them to keep the enemy out is not really fun. When I first decided to play Protoss, I was told that Protoss was an aggressive race with expensive but powerful units. As an Orc player coming from WC3, I figured this would be a perfect match. By the time I realised that this was not the case, I had already invested too much time in learning Protoss to make me want to change.
I also agree that spells that take away from micro are terrible, such as fungal growth, where you simply cant move your units. I also feel that in HOTS it becomes completely rediculous as fungal, with broodlings, and locusts make it so if you get fungaled, you might as well leave the screen and go back to your base and macro. There is nothing you can do.
On the removal of the Mothership, there would have to be a lot more changes than what has been asked for. Protoss has no chance vs late game zerg without the Mothership imo.
Small correction--the reason you see so many 2-base all-ins on Antiga and Shakuras isn't the narrow choke at the third making it easy for P to kill Z. It's the layouts of the third that make it difficult for P to take a third. On Antiga, there is actually too much space to defend a third base with sentries and roach drops are often unstoppable. On Shakuras, the pocket third is too open to defend with forcefields, and the choke third is too far away to defend. P all-ins on those maps because they have to. They're not actually that great for immortal-sentry because there are plenty of open areas that P has to cross to attack. Cloud Kingdom, on the other hand, is a good map for immortal-sentry all-in because it has tight chokes all the way across the map.
FWIW, this imposes an even more crippling design limitation on maps--they need a third base that's tucked right next to the natural without too much open space around the third or the natural. Otherwise, P can't take a third vs Z and they will have to 2-base all-in.
For the rest, yes, you're right that forcefields make the game worse. And the splash damage spells are too powerful because everything is balled up too tightly. If we could just moderately increase the collision radius (size) of units, splash spells wouldn't be so overpowered. Think about how much better EMP is against HT than against infestors. It's the same spell, but the target collision radius completely changes the power of the effect.
Great analysis, really well written post, i completely agree, with everything. I'm thinking, maybe giving Sentry/Ghosts attacks, was a wrong move. You should feel be able to tell, that you're trading Damage output and Health Pools for supporting spells.
forcefields are probably the best new gameplay idea that blizzard put in sc2 what are you talking about? they dont DAMAGE or HEAL or ADD BONUS etc etc - that shit is badass... so you actually have to think somewhat of how to micro and there are multiple ways to use them. cutting army in half/third, delaying, pushing units toward you. NOT just fungal as many as you can! or storm as many as you can! or emp as many as you can!
its one of the few things that as a caster observer player you dont know the outcome of the battle since its how well the player uses the ff's or the opponent baits them. so dont complain about some stupid pushes that you are sick of seeing - weve had these pushes from every race throught sc2s history.
Fixing protoss involves. Making warpgate a late game tech option. Buffing gateway units, zealots and stalkers. Removing Immortals. Buffing Voidrays. Removing dark shrine.
On October 19 2012 00:59 KingAce wrote: Fixing protoss involves. Making warpgate a late game tech option. Buffing gateway units, zealots and stalkers. Removing Immortals. Buffing Voidrays. Removing dark shrine.
Looks good but why remove Immortals? They consistently rank as one of the most beloved unit amongst players. The only change that's needed is to put an upper cap on Harden Shield (for example, each invocation negates AT MOST 20 damage so they don't hard-hard counter mech and weapons upgrades would actually be useful).
I really enjoy forcefield micro, even if it's not always the most complex thing to do, it does reward those who pull them off. Medivacs picking up units, or Burrow movement, are ways to dodge forcefields. Also theres always massive units.
I think the Sentry could be indirectly nerfed by giving another unit like the Oracle a support ability that competes with FF/Guardian Shield.
My suggestion is a Shield Battery that works on single units, which would be used to help expensive units like a colossus or a tempest make it out of the front lines if they're being focused down, or even on a building as well. This provides more battle micro, which can make it harder to pull off clutch forcefields for some players. It's also just not fun to watch slow expensive units die so quickly so often.. a support ability would make for really interesting micro, which would require players to be quick to catch their units with the shield battery before they die.
On October 18 2012 09:45 Thaniri wrote: Blizzard doesn't care. Starcraft can't turn the same profit that WoW did. Blizzard seems to be a company, more than a game producer. They care about maximizing profits, not necessarily making a good game.
Wrath of the lich, cataclysm, diablo 3, many aspects of sc2, and finally mists of pandaria all together combine to prove that blizzard is chasing dollars.
Blizzard needs to FIRST go back to WC3 style battle.net. With the same type of chat, customs games, and profiles, THEN BEGIN TO BALANCE. With the fundamental anti-social aspect of battle.net 0.2, it does not matter how good your game is, because people wont be playing with their friends.
yeah - ever since activision bought blizzard they have just been looking for ways to make more money. Which is kind of ironic since they won't be making any more at the rate they are going. Anyway, great ideas gretorp very interesting read. thanks for taking the time to post this.
Activision never bought Blizzard. Both are owned by Vivendi and that was just merging them under one subdivision of Vivendi Games more or less.
On October 19 2012 00:05 DarkSeth wrote: This thread represents everything that is wrong with the gaming scene nowadays. The consumers demand to be heard. It is this that destroys franchises, not the corporations wish to make money. You can whine and complain as much as you want about how Blizzard turned into an arrogant game developer that does not listen, and are completely ignorant to consumer feedback (which they are not). They still have MUCH more experience in designing, creating, and balancing games than anyone in this thread with MAYBE an exception or two. So for the love of God, cut them some slack. Blizzard has delivered so many times, it is revolting to see this lack of faith. Most of the mistakes they make are because of their attempt to please the masses, which will never achieve the best possible result, because the average person is actually not that bright.
Remember all those games that blew you away? That were so innovating and fresh they made your jaw drop in awe? Odds are you never tried to influence how that game would turn out. Odds are you TRUSTED the developer to deliver a good game. Odds are it took you by surprise, because you did not have a list of what YOU wanted in the game.
Now, I am not saying that the SC2 team at Blizzard is perfect, but they are damn far from as incompetent as many of you paint them out to be. In most cases Blizzard delivers, and sitting here reading post upon post about how broken SC2 is, is fucking infuriating. Many of you are so obscenely focused on finding something negative to point out that you are no longer capable of even enjoying the game, being caught up in your crusade to change the game into your own liking. Many of you are so obscenely focused on whining that in lack of something to actually complain about you just jump on the bandwagon, completely clueless as to what you are actually advocating. That being said, there are off course a lot of good ideas, and well thought through feedback. Sadly much of it disappears in the ocean of near aggressive complaints.
I am going to have to stop here. I could go on and on about the problems with forums, and consumer feedback, so I will leave you with this. Do not forget what brought you to the game to begin with. What made you spend hours playing. What gave you all the entertainment you undoubtedly have had. Do not forget that when it all boils down, every game designer and programmer do what they do because they love games, and because they want to create something that will be appreciated and enjoyed.
100 % agree one of not many rly good posts on that thread.
besides that i think greetorp pointed out some flaws that should be adressed.
Please Blizzard make an awesome game (what sc2 is) more awesome
absolutly love the Game. Maybe someone with proper english can write a post about all the wonderfull and good things in SC2 would love to read that.
Great post Gretorp, you're thinking in the right direction. The main T1/T2 and even some T3 units are basically just fodder/support once those powerful abilities come to the forefront of any engagement. Protoss is hilariously weak once you've killed off any archons/HT/Collosus and you're left with a big ball of stalkers/zealots. Just like a pure roach army is going to be destroyed by a high number of forefields.
As fun as it is to watch the occaisional brilliant come-from-behind victory due to a money storm/fungal/forcefield/EMP....they just don't feel like the correct way to balance the game.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but there's something (dare I say an elephant in the room?) you're not taking into account: unit clumping.
Most of the problems with balancing SC2, especially in terms of spellcasters like Infestors and the all-or-nothing moments of drama they cause, arise because [b]large armies are too cohesive and mobile.
Draw an imaginary graph. Left to right is the amount of effect a spell can have (0 = a complete whiff, 1 = entirety of fungal hits something). Bottom to top is the frequency with which those events occur when a spell is used.
What do those graphs look like? Answer: they're pretty damn binary. Because armies slither around in big oily clumps, a huge proportion of fungal casts have the maximum imaginable effect. You can scale that up and down by adjusting the radius, but the point you're balancing around has to be the maximum, because it's so often attained.
Same with forcefield. How much of the enemy's army can you slice off and chew with forcefields? Answer: a devastatingly large chunk, because so much can get packed into that radius. How much damage can you do from behind a line of protective forcefields? Answer: a huge amount, because your units can instantly cram themselves together up against it and his units can all be crammed on the other side too.
Then there's defender's advantage. Watch how fast a maxed army can flow through a typical bit of terrain, and ask yourself how a smaller defensive force, even with high ground and a concave, can possibly hope to do a high enough rate of damage to stop the advance.
Even when armies are evenly matched, the number one reason why the game devolves into deathball vs deathball is that deathballs are so compact and conform so fluidly. Every unit either is or quickly comes in range of the enemy, so every unit can shoot at something. If armies didn't smoosh so fluidly into one another there would be more time for a pre-prepared concave to enjoy an advantage, and more incentive to fight in several places at once. So long as deathball is the most efficient formation, all we'll ever see are:
1. Deathballs 2. Complaints about how OP 'anti deathball' spells like Fungal are
On a related note is the unit density equivalent of the 'perfect fungal problem' I mentioned at the start. It's actually hard to make enough marines that they aren't all able to do damage at once, but let's say the practical limit is 100. Now suppose you're trying to design counters to marine armies. You need to incorporate counters that work vs 1 marine, 2 marines .... 99 marines and 100 marines. Lings and roaches work for a bit, and banelings and speed-banes - but sooner or later everything stops working and you have to reach for the fungal. Imagine if you could stop worrying about how many marines you needed to be able to counter before fungal was needed?
Then there's the negligible difference in concentrated DPS between a moving and stationary army. What happened to Mutas harrassing Terran armies on the move? It stopped, because an amoeba of marines is never less than utterly lethal to them.
TL;DR: SC2's unit movement is making it unnecessarily difficult for units to find a meaningful yet not overpowered role.
I don't see why you have hunter seeker missile in the list. Casting the spell generates micro as the player has to remove the target from its clump of units. Also the cast range is very short so it can hardly be done before a battle.
I also think feedback vs emp battles are pretty darn epic to watch.
Remove forcefield, emp, fungal, psi storm, hunter seeker missile. Replace the spells with some kind of aoe support or debuff that doesn't immobilize (ff, fungal) or damage (storm, emp, fungal, hunter seeker missile) units directly, OR just invent some new single target spells.
- Reduce size and unit collision of ultralisks - Increase leash range on carriers - Also buff gateway units so they trade more efficiently vs roachling and m&m, could potentially replace sentry with a protoss unit that buffs or debuffs allies and enemies. After FF is removed, gateway units have no exit strategy when engaging vs T or Z. To justify the cost of a stalker, unless you reach a critical mass where you start actually abusing the range and blink ability on it, a gateway army just cannot fight a straight up battle against similar tiered army in the early and mid game.
Just my opinion on how blizzard *should* fix sc2. Battles will be decided by army control and positioning rather than split second aoe spell casting and dodging. The amount of effort for someone to cast an aoe spell vs the amount of apm and attention to dodge incoming spells is incredibly lobsided in favor of the caster.
On October 19 2012 00:59 KingAce wrote: Fixing protoss involves. Making warpgate a late game tech option. Buffing gateway units, zealots and stalkers. Removing Immortals. Buffing Voidrays. Removing dark shrine.
Looks good but why remove Immortals? They consistently rank as one of the most beloved unit amongst players. The only change that's needed is to put an upper cap on Harden Shield (for example, each invocation negates AT MOST 20 damage so they don't hard-hard counter mech and weapons upgrades would actually be useful).
Because immortals serve as a "hero" unit. If you have experience with Brood War you would know that "hero" type units aren't required to have a balanced game.
On October 19 2012 01:05 frostalgia wrote: I really enjoy forcefield micro, even if it's not always the most complex thing to do, it does reward those who pull them off. Medivacs picking up units, or Burrow movement, are ways to dodge forcefields. Also theres always massive units.
I think the Sentry could be indirectly nerfed by giving another unit like the Oracle a support ability that competes with FF/Guardian Shield.
My suggestion is a Shield Battery that works on single units, which would be used to help expensive units like a colossus or a tempest make it out of the front lines if they're being focused down, or even on a building as well. This provides more battle micro, which can make it harder to pull off clutch forcefields for some players. It's also just not fun to watch slow expensive units die so quickly so often.. a support ability would make for really interesting micro, which would require players to be quick to catch their units with the shield battery before they die.
That's "if" you can get a massive unit Terran don't usually have the minerals for third and why would you get one when template could just feed back it? The whole "massive" crushes forcefields thing is retarded as well. Blizzard really needs to remove the whole "hero unit" concept.
Gretorp I think your suggestions are great. I'm a little Zerg biased as that is my main race, but I see forcefield and vortex as anti-fun spells. I can understand why fungal is anti-fun as well. Hopefully somebody from blizzard reads this.
I agree 100% with your suggestions Gretorp. Implementing all of these might be too big of a change for Blizzard to be comfortable making, but at the very least fungal and forcefield should no longer entirely negate movement and vortex should be removed. I can't imagine these changes would do anything but good for the metagame, providing the game is balanced after they are implemented.
On October 19 2012 00:59 KingAce wrote: Fixing protoss involves. Making warpgate a late game tech option. Buffing gateway units, zealots and stalkers. Removing Immortals. Buffing Voidrays. Removing dark shrine.
Looks good but why remove Immortals? They consistently rank as one of the most beloved unit amongst players. The only change that's needed is to put an upper cap on Harden Shield (for example, each invocation negates AT MOST 20 damage so they don't hard-hard counter mech and weapons upgrades would actually be useful).
Because immortals serve as a "hero" unit. If you have experience with Brood War you would know that "hero" type units aren't required to have a balanced game.
Help me out here. How is the Immortal (or even a nerfed Immortal following my suggestion) a Hero unit?
On October 19 2012 00:59 KingAce wrote: Fixing protoss involves. Making warpgate a late game tech option. Buffing gateway units, zealots and stalkers. Removing Immortals. Buffing Voidrays. Removing dark shrine.
Looks good but why remove Immortals? They consistently rank as one of the most beloved unit amongst players. The only change that's needed is to put an upper cap on Harden Shield (for example, each invocation negates AT MOST 20 damage so they don't hard-hard counter mech and weapons upgrades would actually be useful).
Because immortals serve as a "hero" unit. If you have experience with Brood War you would know that "hero" type units aren't required to have a balanced game.
Help me out here. How is the Immortal (or even a nerfed Immortal following my suggestion) a Hero unit?
Because in this community, "hero unit" is a hot phrase used as an unfocused critique of SC2 in general. See e.g. "deathball."
On October 19 2012 01:05 frostalgia wrote: I really enjoy forcefield micro, even if it's not always the most complex thing to do, it does reward those who pull them off. Medivacs picking up units, or Burrow movement, are ways to dodge forcefields. Also theres always massive units.
I think the Sentry could be indirectly nerfed by giving another unit like the Oracle a support ability that competes with FF/Guardian Shield.
My suggestion is a Shield Battery that works on single units, which would be used to help expensive units like a colossus or a tempest make it out of the front lines if they're being focused down, or even on a building as well. This provides more battle micro, which can make it harder to pull off clutch forcefields for some players. It's also just not fun to watch slow expensive units die so quickly so often.. a support ability would make for really interesting micro, which would require players to be quick to catch their units with the shield battery before they die.
That's "if" you can get a massive unit Terran don't usually have the minerals for third and why would you get one when template could just feed back it? The whole "massive" crushes forcefields thing is retarded as well. Blizzard really needs to remove the whole "hero unit" concept.
Not a HERO unit.. And I'm pretty familliar with my favorite game bw
The immortal hating is pretty weird. The worst thing I can say about it is that like many SC2 units, it suffers from being too good against the units it counters (e.g. tanks) and a complete joke against the units that counter it (e.g. marines). Many of the counters in SC2 are simply too sharp, and the game would be better if Blizzard made an effort to look into toning some of them down.
On October 19 2012 03:58 kcdc wrote: The immortal hating is pretty weird. The worst thing I can say about it is that like many SC2 units, it suffers from being too good against the units it counters (e.g. tanks) and a complete joke against the units that counter it (e.g. marines). Many of the counters in SC2 are simply too sharp, and the game would be better if Blizzard made an effort to look into toning some of them down.
Would it really be a better game if the counters weren't as sharp as they are right now? In my opinion the counters couldn't be sharp enough.
Look at "rock - paper - scissors". Razor sharp counters, awesome game design. Has been successfull for thousands of years.
On October 19 2012 03:58 kcdc wrote: The immortal hating is pretty weird. The worst thing I can say about it is that like many SC2 units, it suffers from being too good against the units it counters (e.g. tanks) and a complete joke against the units that counter it (e.g. marines). Many of the counters in SC2 are simply too sharp, and the game would be better if Blizzard made an effort to look into toning some of them down.
Would it really be a better game if the counters weren't as sharp as they are right now? In my opinion the counters couldn't be sharp enough.
Look at "rock - paper - scissors". Razor sharp counters, awesome game design. Has been successfull for thousands of years.
True story.
Good point. Forget SC2. I'm gonna go play PvP...er...I mean Rock Paper Scissors.
On October 19 2012 00:05 DarkSeth wrote: This thread represents everything that is wrong with the gaming scene nowadays. The consumers demand to be heard. It is this that destroys franchises, not the corporations wish to make money. You can whine and complain as much as you want about how Blizzard turned into an arrogant game developer that does not listen, and are completely ignorant to consumer feedback (which they are not). They still have MUCH more experience in designing, creating, and balancing games than anyone in this thread with MAYBE an exception or two. So for the love of God, cut them some slack. Blizzard has delivered so many times, it is revolting to see this lack of faith. Most of the mistakes they make are because of their attempt to please the masses, which will never achieve the best possible result, because the average person is actually not that bright.
Remember all those games that blew you away? That were so innovating and fresh they made your jaw drop in awe? Odds are you never tried to influence how that game would turn out. Odds are you TRUSTED the developer to deliver a good game. Odds are it took you by surprise, because you did not have a list of what YOU wanted in the game.
Now, I am not saying that the SC2 team at Blizzard is perfect, but they are damn far from as incompetent as many of you paint them out to be. In most cases Blizzard delivers, and sitting here reading post upon post about how broken SC2 is, is fucking infuriating. Many of you are so obscenely focused on finding something negative to point out that you are no longer capable of even enjoying the game, being caught up in your crusade to change the game into your own liking. Many of you are so obscenely focused on whining that in lack of something to actually complain about you just jump on the bandwagon, completely clueless as to what you are actually advocating. That being said, there are off course a lot of good ideas, and well thought through feedback. Sadly much of it disappears in the ocean of near aggressive complaints.
I am going to have to stop here. I could go on and on about the problems with forums, and consumer feedback, so I will leave you with this. Do not forget what brought you to the game to begin with. What made you spend hours playing. What gave you all the entertainment you undoubtedly have had. Do not forget that when it all boils down, every game designer and programmer do what they do because they love games, and because they want to create something that will be appreciated and enjoyed.
I agree to most of what you write as well as to most of Gretorp's suggestions.
I think while Gretorp's delivers some well though-out suggestions, he still doesn't have the information like David Kim or any of his co-workers. Players and developers perceive the game very differently.
When Blizzard is wrong, they should be told so. But Blizzard does need the courage to make decisions which are not liked by the majority of the community if there is a good reason for that decision, even though it is may be extremely hard to explain to a player or watcher or caster.
I have great respect for Gretorp's work, but I have even more respect for Blizzards game designers.
I agree for the most part but I think Concussive Shell needs to go. It is another instrument that forces players to deathball rather than engage in small fights around the map
No matter how Blizzard reacts, someone is going to be pissed. Everyone complains about something in the SC2. Blizzard WILL NOT make BW 2.0. Honestly, I don't want them to. I got bored of BW, because towards the end of its run, it was very similar games, everyone knew what worked and what didn't. Rarely was I blown away by crazy builds late in the life of BW. like TvP, Terran ALWAYS went mech..... and I got tired of that monotony. I like that Blizzard is trying to make multiple builds viable instead of just rehashing BW.
SC2 isn't perfect, not by any means and I would agree with much needed changing (like I feel that Protoss is getting 10 feet of rebar rammed up their ass in HOTS. but whatever).
I just don't think people constantly complaining about the balance of the game is going to fix it. I'm glad they are listening to the changes but they are also giving their own take on the game. It isn't done, but I am confident that they won't ruin the game.
Everyone made many of the same complains during WoL's beta (1 supply roaches, broken maps, crazy siege tank damage etc.) I just don't think balance wise, the game should be compared to BW. (except carrier, because that's honestly the best way to fix it imo). Its a new game, with new builds, controls and micro. Saying you want bad pathing and dumb units is just ridiculous. No developer in their right mind is going to make units stupid just so players work harder. THey create new mechanics that create equally high level of play without making pro's fight with the game itself, which is pretty much what the BW's pros had to do.
Note: I am not directing this at the OP, merely the general swath of comments i"ve read in the thread
On October 18 2012 09:32 Glon wrote: I think that, more than anything, we should be trying to get blizzard to simply LISTEN more than just propose changes.
The problem isnt to make them listen, but rather to act ... which includes admitting to having made bad choices as Blizzard devs. With the "stellar" design of Diablo 3 there should be a lot more reaction to the community from Blizzard to reclaim lost ground and this requires them to change things dear to them. If they dont listen then we just need to act and ignore HotS and keep on playing WoL.
As far as Gretorps original post I think he focuses too much on the units and not on the clear "general problems" of the game like the "perfect movement", "unlimited unit selection" and "disparity in production speed boosts between the races". With these problems unsolved it doesnt really matter how the units are going to be changed, although I fully agree with Forcefield and Fungal being rather terrible spells. EMP isnt that bad as it is made up to be.
On October 18 2012 09:32 Glon wrote: I think that, more than anything, we should be trying to get blizzard to simply LISTEN more than just propose changes.
As far as Gretorps original post I think he focuses too much on the units and not on the clear "general problems" of the game like the "perfect movement", "unlimited unit selection"
Those are not problems? The problem is that the game play is rather boring because of the facts he mentioned. We dont want a harder gui, we want more interesting gameplay and units, if you want shitty movement go play bw. We dont have to make a step back just to get a good game
On October 18 2012 09:32 Glon wrote: I think that, more than anything, we should be trying to get blizzard to simply LISTEN more than just propose changes.
As far as Gretorps original post I think he focuses too much on the units and not on the clear "general problems" of the game like the "perfect movement", "unlimited unit selection"
Those are not problems? The problem is that the game play is rather boring because of the facts he mentioned. We dont want a harder gui, we want more interesting gameplay and units, if you want shitty movement go play bw. We dont have to make a step back just to get a good game
Say you're trying to get to the top of a hill, but you accidentally walk too far and go down the other side. Would you still say "Well, I'm not going to take a step back just to get where I want to be; I'll stay here."
I agree with your sentiments, but I think thats mostly because I played SC and BW aswell.. A lot of the changes you propose are kind of a return to a BW playstyle I think... And if I recall correctly Blizzard has no intention of making game look like BW.
But still, I have always found the fat weak fagmasters that are SC2 zealots to be painful to watch if you compare them what they used to be.. BTW what do you guys think about taking away concussive shells from marauders and giving them to, lets say, the warhound?
I don't know much about you Gretorp, but this post alone makes me respect you a lot. This was a very in depth post, summing up all the faults with SC2's design. It even helped me articulate some things I have been thinking about, and made others much more clear.
When I compare the quality of this post with anything DB or DK have been posting about balance and design, I know I would hire Gretorp to manage my game.
Just one question, I would really like to hear your opinion on this one. Do you think warp gate needs redesign to make it more fair/interesting?
On October 18 2012 09:32 Glon wrote: I think that, more than anything, we should be trying to get blizzard to simply LISTEN more than just propose changes.
As far as Gretorps original post I think he focuses too much on the units and not on the clear "general problems" of the game like the "perfect movement", "unlimited unit selection"
Those are not problems? The problem is that the game play is rather boring because of the facts he mentioned. We dont want a harder gui, we want more interesting gameplay and units, if you want shitty movement go play bw. We dont have to make a step back just to get a good game
Say you're trying to get to the top of a hill, but you accidentally walk too far and go down the other side. Would you still say "Well, I'm not going to take a step back just to get where I want to be; I'll stay here."
Say your analogy doesn't apply to this situation...
Seriously though, harder gui is an unnecessarily frustrating component. You don't need to make everything god-awful hard to raise the skill cap.
My favorite kind of game is a game that's easy to learn but hard to master, like chess. That's why I didn't like playing BW competitively. In SC2, my passion for competitive gameplay was kindled.
Sure it's gone downhill some, but there's a mountain ahead, ready to be boldly climbed. Blizzard is up to the challenge; we just need to give them a wake-up call.
1) Carrier; bring back the same leash micro with interceptors as was in BW.. This in itself will solve some issues regarding people who complain about the boring build-up to colossus fights and their quick outcome, as there would be more people playing stargate builds. Which have more mid-game flavor than the buildup and 3 basing that can occur in the colossus wars. (imo colossus is cool anyway but that's just me and I can understand why some people hate the unit.)
2) Forcefield; Probably the most broken/annoying thing about playing/facing toss for a million reasons discussed in this thread. IMO queens should be able to knock down a FF, this would allow zergs to better deal with the immortal timing push that is probably the silliest thing in the game currently. This would also add an incentive for micro regarding sniping/protecting/knocking down ff's with queens, and perhaps would add an interesting dynamic for a mass queenstyle/roach defensive style vs the immortal sentry builds since queens would also be good vs stargate style.
3) Paid Name Changes; I think everyone agrees with this, anyone who doesn't feel free to voice your opinion on the matter and be slaughtered by 1000 flamers.
As a protoss player, I was an avid RTS player of SC and WC3:FT until SC2 came out. SC2 grows tiring of force fields determining games in such a massive way. That ONE dynamic is such a large factor in the game from the beginning to the end that it's not worth playing for me anymore. I played RTS games from like 1999-2000 until the beginning of 2012. I guess I should just switch races but I really have no desire to learn another race's nitty details.
I hope these suggestions get seriously considered, although I doubt they ever will be.
The only issue with the forcefield being a "slow field" is that without the ability to forcefield ramps, PvP goes back to what it was in september of 2011 (4 gate party!)--which is no fun at all. If you reworked the FF to be like that, you'd have to reword the warpgate mechanic, unless you want to break PvP.
Peronally, I think it would be a reasonable idea to give nexus a large "warp in field" (with like 10 range or something) so that you can still use warp in's as a defensive tactic; take away the ability to warp in on pylon fields, but still allow warp prisms to project a "warp in field", so that you could still use the prism as a proxy pylon/harassment tool.
I don't usually like to theory craft, but I think this sounds like an okay idea.
On October 18 2012 09:32 Glon wrote: I think that, more than anything, we should be trying to get blizzard to simply LISTEN more than just propose changes.
As far as Gretorps original post I think he focuses too much on the units and not on the clear "general problems" of the game like the "perfect movement", "unlimited unit selection"
Those are not problems? The problem is that the game play is rather boring because of the facts he mentioned. We dont want a harder gui, we want more interesting gameplay and units, if you want shitty movement go play bw. We dont have to make a step back just to get a good game
Say you're trying to get to the top of a hill, but you accidentally walk too far and go down the other side. Would you still say "Well, I'm not going to take a step back just to get where I want to be; I'll stay here."
Say your analogy doesn't apply to this situation...
Seriously though, harder gui is an unnecessarily frustrating component. You don't need to make everything god-awful hard to raise the skill cap.
My favorite kind of game is a game that's easy to learn but hard to master, like chess. That's why I didn't like playing BW competitively. In SC2, my passion for competitive gameplay was kindled.
Sure it's gone downhill some, but there's a mountain ahead, ready to be boldly climbed. Blizzard is up to the challenge; we just need to give them a wake-up call.
changing the way units move in groups would not be a step backwards, it would be a huge step forwards. And it doesn't make anything harder for the poor casuals.
I too hate forcefields. They're sort of fun to cast, but what's not fun is having them so thoroughly determine the game. "Whoops, I was looking at my base for those 3 seconds; guess I lose," isn't fun anymore. And I'm sure forcefields aren't fun on the opponent's end either.
I want an army that can go toe-to-toe with my opponent without hiding behind a spell so that I can use multiple forces at once and be more active passing through open areas before max. And to get that army, forcefield needs to go or I'll never lose.
Why not make forcefield a purely defensive ability. Tie it to range of and around a nexus or hell, make it castable by the nexus itself. That way you don't have to totally rebalance the early game.
On October 19 2012 08:23 Mo0Rauder wrote: *Opinion* on how to fix HoTS/Toss:
1) Carrier; bring back the same leash micro with interceptors as was in BW.. This in itself will solve some issues regarding people who complain about the boring build-up to colossus fights and their quick outcome, as there would be more people playing stargate builds. Which have more mid-game flavor than the buildup and 3 basing that can occur in the colossus wars. (imo colossus is cool anyway but that's just me and I can understand why some people hate the unit.)
2) Forcefield; Probably the most broken/annoying thing about playing/facing toss for a million reasons discussed in this thread. IMO queens should be able to knock down a FF, this would allow zergs to better deal with the immortal timing push that is probably the silliest thing in the game currently. This would also add an incentive for micro regarding sniping/protecting/knocking down ff's with queens, and perhaps would add an interesting dynamic for a mass queenstyle/roach defensive style vs the immortal sentry builds since queens would also be good vs stargate style.
3) Paid Name Changes; I think everyone agrees with this, anyone who doesn't feel free to voice your opinion on the matter and be slaughtered by 1000 flamers.
The immortal FF push is done so frequently because the alternative is to play a super hard ultra turtle macro game vs. the zerg super army and either get a perfect vortex or auto-die. Protoss needs a stronger ability to pressure without going all-in, while not strengthening the all-ins, and a better ability to deal with the BL/infestor death push.
Yes the push is very strong and hard to stop, but if you take that away without fixing toss elsewhere to give them strong pressure, you've actually just guaranteed that every ZvP is a zerg rush to broods with super economy and Protoss getting rolled before they can actually deal with that composition.
On October 19 2012 08:23 Mo0Rauder wrote: *Opinion* on how to fix HoTS/Toss:
1) Carrier; bring back the same leash micro with interceptors as was in BW.. This in itself will solve some issues regarding people who complain about the boring build-up to colossus fights and their quick outcome, as there would be more people playing stargate builds. Which have more mid-game flavor than the buildup and 3 basing that can occur in the colossus wars. (imo colossus is cool anyway but that's just me and I can understand why some people hate the unit.)
2) Forcefield; Probably the most broken/annoying thing about playing/facing toss for a million reasons discussed in this thread. IMO queens should be able to knock down a FF, this would allow zergs to better deal with the immortal timing push that is probably the silliest thing in the game currently. This would also add an incentive for micro regarding sniping/protecting/knocking down ff's with queens, and perhaps would add an interesting dynamic for a mass queenstyle/roach defensive style vs the immortal sentry builds since queens would also be good vs stargate style.
3) Paid Name Changes; I think everyone agrees with this, anyone who doesn't feel free to voice your opinion on the matter and be slaughtered by 1000 flamers.
The immortal FF push is done so frequently because the alternative is to play a super hard ultra turtle macro game vs. the zerg super army and either get a perfect vortex or auto-die. Protoss needs a stronger ability to pressure without going all-in, while not strengthening the all-ins, and a better ability to deal with the BL/infestor death push.
Yes the push is very strong and hard to stop, but if you take that away without fixing toss elsewhere to give them strong pressure, you've actually just guaranteed that every ZvP is a zerg rush to broods with super economy and Protoss getting rolled before they can actually deal with that composition.
You act as though Recall doesn't exist in HotS. Have you played it?
most of the problems come with the possibility to MASS caster units in late game scenario's
in a regular mid game, they are fine, because ppl use them as the next tier upgrade and pair them with the already existing units. later on we see a tendency to trade "cheaper" units for more casters
maybe just limit the amount of spell casters which can be made? say 10 infestors (at a time) or 12 ghosts/templars this would balance out so many things; imagine the old ghost vs zerg! snipe was literally nerfed into the ground because terrans would mass 30 ghosts as a combat unit and not the way they were meant to. or infestors: when you see zergs incorporate 30 infestors into broodlord armies, because so many infested terrans cover your air even better then regular AA units AND are basicially free
yet still, emp/fungal needs to be strong and (relatively) fast on the damage/effect they cause - i agree though some spells could be reworked, say EMP does a shield/energy "drain" to leave a time window open for the enemy caster unit to use its energy, or storm could do 50 damage and slows attack speed by XX% or so
sentries are a completely different story and so is the mother ship i agree.
but regarding ghosts, templars, ravens and inferstors the mentioned changes would work out with the proper numbers
1. As a Zerg, fungal should change. A lot. But neural is a great spell imo... Vs T Mech it makes unit positioning so much more important... 2. I think that by nerfing some of the lower tier units, you could fix a lot of the problems of the game. 200\200 roach max, Marine Marauder vs Tier 3 Toss, etc... It would make most of the match-ups more interesting to watch and play. 3. Overall instead of introducing new units the should just dramatically change the existing units so it a legitimate expansion..
On October 19 2012 00:54 WniO wrote: forcefields are probably the best new gameplay idea that blizzard put in sc2 what are you talking about? they dont DAMAGE or HEAL or ADD BONUS etc etc - that shit is badass... so you actually have to think somewhat of how to micro and there are multiple ways to use them. cutting army in half/third, delaying, pushing units toward you. NOT just fungal as many as you can! or storm as many as you can! or emp as many as you can!
its one of the few things that as a caster observer player you dont know the outcome of the battle since its how well the player uses the ff's or the opponent baits them. so dont complain about some stupid pushes that you are sick of seeing - weve had these pushes from every race throught sc2s history.
This is pretty much how I feel about Forcefield. I agree that it sucks that Protoss players have to rely on it often and that it causes quite a lot of frustration in all-ins but I would much prefer that they stay in the game mostly unchanged and that the other races get additional ways to deal with them and Protoss gets additional options so that they are not so important.
I definitely agree with the problems in PvZ. It's become the most boring matchup for me, both to play and to watch. Not sure if I'm ready to condemn ghosts having EMP and the functionality of fungals on infestors.
I wonder though if changing force fields or completely revamping Protoss is realistic at this point, though. I mean hypothetically there could be a fix for sentries that involves modifying the other gateway units. That would seem more in line with what Blizzard seemingly hopes to accomplish with the expansion. I'm definitely fine with getting rid of the mothership (or at least vortex) as long as Protoss has a few other ways to deal with brood lords. Bringing back stasis from BW or adding a spell similar to that might be a good fix; if you think about it stasis acts in a very similar way to vortex but partially nullifies the archon toilet. Or who knows, maybe the tempest will actually be good at sniping brood lords as they float across the map. At any rate archon toilets just are not that fun to watch or play against.
I want you to play PvT PvP and PvZ without using forcefields or sentries and see the effects. You'll be wanting a buff of course. But buffing has other impacts.
I'm a low-mid diamond protoss player, I've got pitiful apm(60), I miss anywhere from 5-15 probes and 2-3 pylons every single game, and I haven't built a sentry in my last 20-30 games, and probably not more than 3 in one game in well over 6 months. My average game time is something like 15-20 min (i'm not 4 gating or cannon rushing games away), about average for my league. It's also worth mentioning that, as of last attempt, i'm a upper plat zerg and a gold terran.
I don't really feel like zealots or stalkers are all that UP, so long as you have good positioning, even or better upgrades, and similar army sizes/values.
I don't think you could argue that I'd be masters with good sentry control, and It seems pretty clear that I'm not doing any insane blink micro/unit dancing with my 1 click/ second. Maybe something huge changes between dia and masters or GM, but with the current semi-random ladder matchmaking I've played a few low masters and done fine. I accept I'm not good enough to theorycraft reasons and what not, I just haven't felt my units were all that much worse than any other races T1.
Maybe we're just a minutely small numbers buff from zealot stalker being a viable early and mid game composition at all levels.
On October 19 2012 08:23 Mo0Rauder wrote: *Opinion* on how to fix HoTS/Toss:
1) Carrier; bring back the same leash micro with interceptors as was in BW.. This in itself will solve some issues regarding people who complain about the boring build-up to colossus fights and their quick outcome, as there would be more people playing stargate builds. Which have more mid-game flavor than the buildup and 3 basing that can occur in the colossus wars. (imo colossus is cool anyway but that's just me and I can understand why some people hate the unit.)
2) Forcefield; Probably the most broken/annoying thing about playing/facing toss for a million reasons discussed in this thread. IMO queens should be able to knock down a FF, this would allow zergs to better deal with the immortal timing push that is probably the silliest thing in the game currently. This would also add an incentive for micro regarding sniping/protecting/knocking down ff's with queens, and perhaps would add an interesting dynamic for a mass queenstyle/roach defensive style vs the immortal sentry builds since queens would also be good vs stargate style.
3) Paid Name Changes; I think everyone agrees with this, anyone who doesn't feel free to voice your opinion on the matter and be slaughtered by 1000 flamers.
The immortal FF push is done so frequently because the alternative is to play a super hard ultra turtle macro game vs. the zerg super army and either get a perfect vortex or auto-die. Protoss needs a stronger ability to pressure without going all-in, while not strengthening the all-ins, and a better ability to deal with the BL/infestor death push.
Yes the push is very strong and hard to stop, but if you take that away without fixing toss elsewhere to give them strong pressure, you've actually just guaranteed that every ZvP is a zerg rush to broods with super economy and Protoss getting rolled before they can actually deal with that composition.
You act as though Recall doesn't exist in HotS. Have you played it?
Of course it exists, but it's not available frequently. You get 1 pressure timing then back off, you can't be constantly aggressive with it. Watch TvZ: terran is doing constant pushes, zerg defends and cleans it up, then the next wave walks out of terran's base. If it's MVPSC style, it's even more aggressive. Recall will help obviously, but it won't make it to the point where the matchup feels as awesome as TvZ.
I want you to play PvT PvP and PvZ without using forcefields or sentries and see the effects. You'll be wanting a buff of course. But buffing has other impacts.
I'm a low-mid diamond protoss player, I've got pitiful apm(60), I miss anywhere from 5-15 probes and 2-3 pylons every single game, and I haven't built a sentry in my last 20-30 games, and probably not more than 3 in one game in well over 6 months. My average game time is something like 15-20 min (i'm not 4 gating or cannon rushing games away), about average for my league. It's also worth mentioning that, as of last attempt, i'm a upper plat zerg and a gold terran.
I don't really feel like zealots or stalkers are all that UP, so long as you have good positioning, even or better upgrades, and similar army sizes/values.
I don't think you could argue that I'd be masters with good sentry control, and It seems pretty clear that I'm not doing any insane blink micro/unit dancing with my 1 click/ second. Maybe something huge changes between dia and masters or GM, but with the current semi-random ladder matchmaking I've played a few low masters and done fine. I accept I'm not good enough to theorycraft reasons and what not, I just haven't felt my units were all that much worse than any other races T1.
Maybe we're just a minutely small numbers buff from zealot stalker being a viable early and mid game composition at all levels.
At the low-mid diamond levels you can probably get away with it, but when you get to masters you kinda just die without sentries. You absolutely have to have guardian shield for a lot of the fights, and forcefield is almost necessary to survive the initial stim/medivac timing.
They did more or less completely reinvent wc3 with tft, almost totally overhauling how the armor/attack type system worked. A total reboot on sc2 might be a good idea.
On October 18 2012 18:04 jworld wrote: I don’t see forcefields as game breaking as you make out. Terran gets to repair bunkers, stim then dropships and ultimately ghosts so forcefields in that matchup are fine as they progressively lose their power as the games go on which is a good thing in my opinion. Give Zerg something to help them against forcefields in mid game by giving them something in lair tech because at the moment hydras are useless other than for all ins.
The EMP/feedback dynamic is favoured for protoss in my opinion and blanket EMPing shouldn’t happen unless the protoss is the weaker player. However I do agree that it is unforgiving and a poor engagement will decide the game. This isn’t because of the EMP though more the insane dps of stimmed bio.
I agree with removing fungal though as it ruins late game in all matchups. Mass fungals and mass infested terrans make for a boring late game and when coupled with broodlords are too powerful.
In my opinion Roaches and Marauders are what hurts sc2 unit interactions and makes games uninteresting and should be removed. The units are boring and too strong for their cost, early availability and ease of use.
While I respect Gretorp's OP and the opinions that say things are wrong (in WOL something is definitely wrong), I feel like this post I quote by jworld is probably more accurate than the OP. And anyway HotS is on it's way to making the game much better.
Overall, support and caster units have ALWAYS been the key to making SC1 and SC2 cool games. What would BroodWar be without defiler's plague + dark swarm + consume? I mean seriously, that combo sounds so broken. But it worked. Sci vessels? Medics? Lurkers? High templars? Arbiters? Reavers? Those units helped define the game.
Why can't sentries, high templars, ghosts, and infestors help define this one (with a tweak here or there, or a new unit in an expansion)? I think it can be done.
Regarding this post:
About the PvZ FF "problem", swarm hosts are exactly that answer. Blizzard is making the right move there in the design I believe. If Z goes early swarm hosts, P has to defend heavily if he's making a ground army. This unit shuts down sentry/immortal 2 base pushes I am fairly certain, despite what changes may come.
Agreed totally about the late game mass fungal/infested terrans being a problem with Broodlords (and spines). It's a worse problem PvZ of course, and vortex is a bad answer. But luckily it's just been a band-aid, and tempests are going to be the real answer here if done right (probably with a good support spell on the Oracle). TvZ, infestor broodlord is surely powerful, but T has more wiggle room.
Roaches are definitely too powerful ZvP in certain points of the game. If P can get something to better defend roaches besides a very specific sentry, immortal composition (think about it, voidrays/1-2 colossus/templar tech just tickle them before they kill a nexus and retreat), then we can make progress there. Maybe the MothershipCore or new earlier game tempests could be enough harassment to change things (make Zerg avoid mass midgame roach) but it's way early to tell.
Stimmed bio is certainly a big part of the late game instant win/lose problem with PvT (sure EMP vs Storm is easy to blame, but it's not the whole story by a long shot). The stimmed bio DPS is just so fast and unforgiving... once the battle starts as P you can't split, you can't dodge (OK maybe blink), etc. Maybe the mothership core being a normal part of a P army will allow for escape. Also battle hellions and widow mines mixed with bio are changing things considerably. If this mixed composition becomes the norm, then bio stimmed dps will be lowered as it will occupy less army space. Widow mines give Terran some area control so that they may be able to hit and run. With those two things I just mentioned, maybe late game PvT battles won't just be a one time smash armies together affair.
In conclusion, caster and support units have to be strong for the game to be interesting. HotS has a lot of potential to fill in gaps that are keeping the game from being the best it can be. We just need more micro, less lopsided wins/losses when armies are close on both sides (which can happen if more micro is in the game), and for a few really strong compositions (Broodlord infestor late or sentry immortal early) to have better counters/deterrents.
On October 19 2012 08:23 Mo0Rauder wrote: *Opinion* on how to fix HoTS/Toss:
1) Carrier; bring back the same leash micro with interceptors as was in BW.. This in itself will solve some issues regarding people who complain about the boring build-up to colossus fights and their quick outcome, as there would be more people playing stargate builds. Which have more mid-game flavor than the buildup and 3 basing that can occur in the colossus wars. (imo colossus is cool anyway but that's just me and I can understand why some people hate the unit.)
2) Forcefield; Probably the most broken/annoying thing about playing/facing toss for a million reasons discussed in this thread. IMO queens should be able to knock down a FF, this would allow zergs to better deal with the immortal timing push that is probably the silliest thing in the game currently. This would also add an incentive for micro regarding sniping/protecting/knocking down ff's with queens, and perhaps would add an interesting dynamic for a mass queenstyle/roach defensive style vs the immortal sentry builds since queens would also be good vs stargate style.
3) Paid Name Changes; I think everyone agrees with this, anyone who doesn't feel free to voice your opinion on the matter and be slaughtered by 1000 flamers.
The immortal FF push is done so frequently because the alternative is to play a super hard ultra turtle macro game vs. the zerg super army and either get a perfect vortex or auto-die. Protoss needs a stronger ability to pressure without going all-in, while not strengthening the all-ins, and a better ability to deal with the BL/infestor death push.
Yes the push is very strong and hard to stop, but if you take that away without fixing toss elsewhere to give them strong pressure, you've actually just guaranteed that every ZvP is a zerg rush to broods with super economy and Protoss getting rolled before they can actually deal with that composition.
You act as though Recall doesn't exist in HotS. Have you played it?
Of course it exists, but it's not available frequently. You get 1 pressure timing then back off, you can't be constantly aggressive with it. Watch TvZ: terran is doing constant pushes, zerg defends and cleans it up, then the next wave walks out of terran's base. If it's MVPSC style, it's even more aggressive. Recall will help obviously, but it won't make it to the point where the matchup feels as awesome as TvZ.
You can be constantly aggressive with recall. Many players already do it. In fact, some players are capable of doing such aggressive timings without even needing Recall. Have you seen SsonLighT play? I always worry when people want the game to be massively changed based on low level players (like foreigners) when those problems don't exist for skilled players.
On October 18 2012 18:04 jworld wrote: I don’t see forcefields as game breaking as you make out. Terran gets to repair bunkers, stim then dropships and ultimately ghosts so forcefields in that matchup are fine as they progressively lose their power as the games go on which is a good thing in my opinion. Give Zerg something to help them against forcefields in mid game by giving them something in lair tech because at the moment hydras are useless other than for all ins.
The EMP/feedback dynamic is favoured for protoss in my opinion and blanket EMPing shouldn’t happen unless the protoss is the weaker player. However I do agree that it is unforgiving and a poor engagement will decide the game. This isn’t because of the EMP though more the insane dps of stimmed bio.
I agree with removing fungal though as it ruins late game in all matchups. Mass fungals and mass infested terrans make for a boring late game and when coupled with broodlords are too powerful.
In my opinion Roaches and Marauders are what hurts sc2 unit interactions and makes games uninteresting and should be removed. The units are boring and too strong for their cost, early availability and ease of use.
While I respect Gretorp's OP and the opinions that say things are wrong (in WOL something is definitely wrong), I feel like this post I quote by jworld is probably more accurate than the OP. And anyway HotS is on it's way to making the game much better.
Overall, support and caster units have ALWAYS been the key to making SC1 and SC2 cool games. What would BroodWar be without defiler's plague + dark swarm + consume? I mean seriously, that combo sounds so broken. But it worked. Sci vessels? Medics? Lurkers? High templars? Arbiters? Reavers? Those units helped define the game.
Why can't sentries, high templars, ghosts, and infestors help define this one (with a tweak here or there, or a new unit in an expansion)? I think it can be done.
Regarding this post:
About the PvZ FF "problem", swarm hosts are exactly that answer. Blizzard is making the right move there in the design I believe. If Z goes early swarm hosts, P has to defend heavily if he's making a ground army. This unit shuts down sentry/immortal 2 base pushes I am fairly certain, despite what changes may come.
Agreed totally about the late game mass fungal/infested terrans being a problem with Broodlords (and spines). It's a worse problem PvZ of course, and vortex is a bad answer. But luckily it's just been a band-aid, and tempests are going to be the real answer here if done right (probably with a good support spell on the Oracle). TvZ, infestor broodlord is surely powerful, but T has more wiggle room.
Roaches are definitely too powerful ZvP in certain points of the game. If P can get something to better defend roaches besides a very specific sentry, immortal composition (think about it, voidrays/1-2 colossus/templar tech just tickle them before they kill a nexus and retreat), then we can make progress there. Maybe the MothershipCore or new earlier game tempests could be enough harassment to change things (make Zerg avoid mass midgame roach) but it's way early to tell.
Stimmed bio is certainly a big part of the late game instant win/lose problem with PvT (sure EMP vs Storm is easy to blame, but it's not the whole story by a long shot). The stimmed bio DPS is just so fast and unforgiving... once the battle starts as P you can't split, you can't dodge (OK maybe blink), etc. Maybe the mothership core being a normal part of a P army will allow for escape. Also battle hellions and widow mines mixed with bio are changing things considerably. If this mixed composition becomes the norm, then bio stimmed dps will be lowered as it will occupy less army space. Widow mines give Terran some area control so that they may be able to hit and run. With those two things I just mentioned, maybe late game PvT battles won't just be a one time smash armies together affair.
In conclusion, caster and support units have to be strong for the game to be interesting. HotS has a lot of potential to fill in gaps that are keeping the game from being the best it can be. We just need more micro, less lopsided wins/losses when armies are close on both sides (which can happen if more micro is in the game), and for a few really strong compositions (Broodlord infestor late or sentry immortal early) to have better counters/deterrents.
The fact remains that sentries are a flat necessity in PvZ the jenga tower of balance tweaks can't be moved. Since a new game is coming out, it's a perfect opportunity to make drastic changes and I would love to see new ways of doing forcefield to allow players to DO SOMETHING ELSE, even though I seriously love me some forcefield. I think guardian shield is fine. It's not a tech choice (always cyber) and it's easy to sandbag 100 gas for a guy you need waiting around for a big fight.
There are infinite cool and concise ways to put a spin on the problem spells, Gretorp's suggestions being a decent pass taken as a group. It's definitely a failure on Blizzard's part that they can't come up with design tweaks (I don't think it's just unwillingness) -- that these design problems existed in the first place. But once the WoL train was rolling their hands were tied because balance was paramount and design changes blow everything to pieces. Which is all the more reason why this is a vital opportunity that can't be missed.
On October 19 2012 13:40 TheLunatic wrote: Still no response to this post directly by the rock, that amazes me.....come on we want to hear what you have to say about this post
Good posts speaks for themselves. There isn't anything besides the obvious the devs can respond to this. The obvious being "thanks for the good post, we will discuss".
On October 19 2012 08:23 Mo0Rauder wrote: *Opinion* on how to fix HoTS/Toss:
1) Carrier; bring back the same leash micro with interceptors as was in BW.. This in itself will solve some issues regarding people who complain about the boring build-up to colossus fights and their quick outcome, as there would be more people playing stargate builds. Which have more mid-game flavor than the buildup and 3 basing that can occur in the colossus wars. (imo colossus is cool anyway but that's just me and I can understand why some people hate the unit.)
2) Forcefield; Probably the most broken/annoying thing about playing/facing toss for a million reasons discussed in this thread. IMO queens should be able to knock down a FF, this would allow zergs to better deal with the immortal timing push that is probably the silliest thing in the game currently. This would also add an incentive for micro regarding sniping/protecting/knocking down ff's with queens, and perhaps would add an interesting dynamic for a mass queenstyle/roach defensive style vs the immortal sentry builds since queens would also be good vs stargate style.
3) Paid Name Changes; I think everyone agrees with this, anyone who doesn't feel free to voice your opinion on the matter and be slaughtered by 1000 flamers.
The immortal FF push is done so frequently because the alternative is to play a super hard ultra turtle macro game vs. the zerg super army and either get a perfect vortex or auto-die. Protoss needs a stronger ability to pressure without going all-in, while not strengthening the all-ins, and a better ability to deal with the BL/infestor death push.
Yes the push is very strong and hard to stop, but if you take that away without fixing toss elsewhere to give them strong pressure, you've actually just guaranteed that every ZvP is a zerg rush to broods with super economy and Protoss getting rolled before they can actually deal with that composition.
You act as though Recall doesn't exist in HotS. Have you played it?
Of course it exists, but it's not available frequently. You get 1 pressure timing then back off, you can't be constantly aggressive with it. Watch TvZ: terran is doing constant pushes, zerg defends and cleans it up, then the next wave walks out of terran's base. If it's MVPSC style, it's even more aggressive. Recall will help obviously, but it won't make it to the point where the matchup feels as awesome as TvZ.
You can be constantly aggressive with recall. Many players already do it. In fact, some players are capable of doing such aggressive timings without even needing Recall. Have you seen SsonLighT play? I always worry when people want the game to be massively changed based on low level players (like foreigners) when those problems don't exist for skilled players.
Watch some Code S PvZ's lately, they are almost always either a 2 base all-in (usually sentry immortal) or Protoss turtling on 3 bases, taking a fourth, and then trying to be aggressive after broodlord infestor is out while avoiding the army and teching to mothership.
That's not being aggressive constantly through the game, that's letting zerg get to end game then saying "I can't fight your army so I'm going to give you the run-around until I can trade inefficiently with your army, but you can't reinforce so it's okay."
That strat isn't all that effective either, just watch the Hero vs. Leenock games from this season, especially the one on antiga.
Hm thanks for featuring this so that I was able to see it.
What a fantastic write-up, and it puts well a lot of the caveats people have against this anti-micro idea or instant-cast spells that can spell doom and whatnot. The more I watch, the more I do sort of lose the passion. It's nice that SC2 is much more readily accessible, but hm I really don't know, it's just not as.....fun, I guess. There are a lot of things that take the fun and joy out of games, and there's the bit about the lower skill ceiling making it uninteresting to follow etc. It's definitely a hard balance, but I feel like there must be some way to have a game both accessible to the masses and fun to watch because there can be so much variation in play levels.
On October 18 2012 09:32 Glon wrote: I think that, more than anything, we should be trying to get blizzard to simply LISTEN more than just propose changes.
As far as Gretorps original post I think he focuses too much on the units and not on the clear "general problems" of the game like the "perfect movement", "unlimited unit selection"
Those are not problems? The problem is that the game play is rather boring because of the facts he mentioned. We dont want a harder gui, we want more interesting gameplay and units, if you want shitty movement go play bw. We dont have to make a step back just to get a good game
Say you're trying to get to the top of a hill, but you accidentally walk too far and go down the other side. Would you still say "Well, I'm not going to take a step back just to get where I want to be; I'll stay here."
Say your analogy doesn't apply to this situation...
Seriously though, harder gui is an unnecessarily frustrating component. You don't need to make everything god-awful hard to raise the skill cap.
It's not about raising the skill-cap. I know that kind of talk gets thrown around a lot so I understand why you might get that impression. But adjusting unit movement and clumping to make large armies more spread out and take longer to negotiate the map is not 'god-awful', and nor is it 'harder gui'.
Try thinking about it this way.
Suppose the supply limit was 600 instead of 200, and you try to play deathball-style. At any one time, a huge chunk of your army would be doing nothing useful in a fight, right? So a more efficient use of your resources would be to broaden the front of combat and attack elsewhere. Presto, we just broke up the deathball.
The problems with that solution are the time required to get to that point (only very very long games would get to the point where deathball wasn't the most efficient strategy) and the DPS that would be going on (which would be so enormous that everything would be consumed too quickly for player micro to have any meaningful impact).
A better alternative is to spread existing armies out, and make them even more spread out when they try to move quickly. This makes max frontline DPS lower relative to the total health of the army (so they die slower and have more time to manoeuvre) and opens up the possibility of harassing armies on the move with small bands of mobile units.
Do you honestly ever see armies being harrassed as they manoeuvre in WoL? No, because they're
Intelligent, well thought out post. I'd love to see Gretorp's continued thoughts on all of the match-ups as well as specific ideas.
In my opinion the number one problem for SC2 and HotS is infestor brood lord. This comp is so dominant it already dominates in HotS, such that Zergs like Bly completely disregard new units (both of zerg and the other races) and continue to win by turtling to infestor brood lord. This awful-to-watch, anti-micro stlyle needs to get changed/removed.
I agree with most of your points and suggested fixes. Funny how most of it boils down to: fix protoss, lol.
Although I must say that I'm a bit disappointed with other casters and professional players. It seems like most of them agree that there are major flaws with the game that could easily be addressed. Yet, very few or none actually speaks up about it. If you have an opinion and want to change things you should use your right to speak up. And no - mumbling on your stream that the XvY matchup is "broken" does not count.
A big reason why someone might be afraid to speak up is the mentality of this community. The notion perpetuated on this forum that you should not whine or complain because it means that you blame your losses on other things than the mistakes you made in the game. The inability of people to grasp the difference between balance complaints and game design complaints. Even the forum mods here on TL can't tell the difference. This is why players like Cloud , Avilo and Jinro gets so much undeserved hate. Sure they bitch and complain, but this should not overshadow the fact that they also have constructive opinions to give about the game. Check the thread about the latest interview with Cloud for a clear example of what I mean. Qxc also got some hate when he was blogging about the design problems of the Raven.
I have suggested this before and now I say it again: Many great games started as mods of other games. Dota and CS for example. You should start an official mod initiative with the goal to make the multiplayer experience better and and to scale better with mechanics and skills. The ongoing mods like Starbow and the 6m1g initiative are honorable, but I feel that they are too much like: lets make the game almost exactly as Brood War.
Ideally SC2 should have been built entirely on BW in the sense that the basic game mechanics and core units were the same. SC2 should keep what is good about BW, remove what is bad and still introduce new awesome units and tactics. Hard goals ...
You should formulate some guidelines like: - Must keep MBS and unlimited unit selection. - Keep as many SC2 units as possible. - Improve defenders advantage. - Positional advantage must be rewarded more. - ...
This could achieve several things:
1, Show that it is possible to make the game much better within the frames of the current game engine. This could prompt Blizzard to make the necessary changes. 2, Create a demand for broadcasted games and tournaments of the custom mod.
In some sense this is crazy, but in my eyes most competitive games are effectively played as mods anyways. Tournaments have long since removed close spawn positions and led the developments towards bigger maps. Features like neutral depots are added to essentially balance out the game. (I've won many ladder games with proxy 2 rax into ramp block vs zerg, this shit is imbalanced as hell and I only abuse it when I'm not feeling confident in the matchup). These maps and map features are not available on the official ladder. They should be.
When GSL and other big tournament organizers started doing this it eventually had the consequence that some of the worst maps were removed from the ladder pool together with close spawns. Why couldn't a mod have the same effects ?
On October 18 2012 18:04 jworld wrote: I don’t see forcefields as game breaking as you make out. Terran gets to repair bunkers, stim then dropships and ultimately ghosts so forcefields in that matchup are fine as they progressively lose their power as the games go on which is a good thing in my opinion. Give Zerg something to help them against forcefields in mid game by giving them something in lair tech because at the moment hydras are useless other than for all ins.
The EMP/feedback dynamic is favoured for protoss in my opinion and blanket EMPing shouldn’t happen unless the protoss is the weaker player. However I do agree that it is unforgiving and a poor engagement will decide the game. This isn’t because of the EMP though more the insane dps of stimmed bio.
I agree with removing fungal though as it ruins late game in all matchups. Mass fungals and mass infested terrans make for a boring late game and when coupled with broodlords are too powerful.
In my opinion Roaches and Marauders are what hurts sc2 unit interactions and makes games uninteresting and should be removed. The units are boring and too strong for their cost, early availability and ease of use.
While I respect Gretorp's OP and the opinions that say things are wrong (in WOL something is definitely wrong), I feel like this post I quote by jworld is probably more accurate than the OP. And anyway HotS is on it's way to making the game much better.
Overall, support and caster units have ALWAYS been the key to making SC1 and SC2 cool games. What would BroodWar be without defiler's plague + dark swarm + consume? I mean seriously, that combo sounds so broken. But it worked. Sci vessels? Medics? Lurkers? High templars? Arbiters? Reavers? Those units helped define the game.
Why can't sentries, high templars, ghosts, and infestors help define this one (with a tweak here or there, or a new unit in an expansion)? I think it can be done.
Regarding this post:
About the PvZ FF "problem", swarm hosts are exactly that answer. Blizzard is making the right move there in the design I believe. If Z goes early swarm hosts, P has to defend heavily if he's making a ground army. This unit shuts down sentry/immortal 2 base pushes I am fairly certain, despite what changes may come.
Agreed totally about the late game mass fungal/infested terrans being a problem with Broodlords (and spines). It's a worse problem PvZ of course, and vortex is a bad answer. But luckily it's just been a band-aid, and tempests are going to be the real answer here if done right (probably with a good support spell on the Oracle). TvZ, infestor broodlord is surely powerful, but T has more wiggle room.
Roaches are definitely too powerful ZvP in certain points of the game. If P can get something to better defend roaches besides a very specific sentry, immortal composition (think about it, voidrays/1-2 colossus/templar tech just tickle them before they kill a nexus and retreat), then we can make progress there. Maybe the MothershipCore or new earlier game tempests could be enough harassment to change things (make Zerg avoid mass midgame roach) but it's way early to tell.
Stimmed bio is certainly a big part of the late game instant win/lose problem with PvT (sure EMP vs Storm is easy to blame, but it's not the whole story by a long shot). The stimmed bio DPS is just so fast and unforgiving... once the battle starts as P you can't split, you can't dodge (OK maybe blink), etc. Maybe the mothership core being a normal part of a P army will allow for escape. Also battle hellions and widow mines mixed with bio are changing things considerably. If this mixed composition becomes the norm, then bio stimmed dps will be lowered as it will occupy less army space. Widow mines give Terran some area control so that they may be able to hit and run. With those two things I just mentioned, maybe late game PvT battles won't just be a one time smash armies together affair.
In conclusion, caster and support units have to be strong for the game to be interesting. HotS has a lot of potential to fill in gaps that are keeping the game from being the best it can be. We just need more micro, less lopsided wins/losses when armies are close on both sides (which can happen if more micro is in the game), and for a few really strong compositions (Broodlord infestor late or sentry immortal early) to have better counters/deterrents.
The fact remains that sentries are a flat necessity in PvZ the jenga tower of balance tweaks can't be moved. Since a new game is coming out, it's a perfect opportunity to make drastic changes and I would love to see new ways of doing forcefield to allow players to DO SOMETHING ELSE, even though I seriously love me some forcefield. I think guardian shield is fine. It's not a tech choice (always cyber) and it's easy to sandbag 100 gas for a guy you need waiting around for a big fight.
There are infinite cool and concise ways to put a spin on the problem spells, Gretorp's suggestions being a decent pass taken as a group. It's definitely a failure on Blizzard's part that they can't come up with design tweaks (I don't think it's just unwillingness) -- that these design problems existed in the first place. But once the WoL train was rolling their hands were tied because balance was paramount and design changes blow everything to pieces. Which is all the more reason why this is a vital opportunity that can't be missed.
What’s wrong with having a unit that is key for early game defence and can be used for a powerful all in. It takes skill to use and separates the good players from the great players. See how hard it is to face a Korean protoss all in compared to a foreigner. Yes it can be unforgiving but is not too difficult a skill to use to warrant removing a dynamic aspect of the game which is enjoyable to watch and also having to redesign a whole race. Just give zerg a unit to give them a chance against forcefields before hive tech.
I still think the need to address the marauder and roach is a more pressing issue. Not very fun watching a player right click on a nexus/hatch and watch it die whilst the opponent can’t kill the highly mobile high hp units fast enough. No skill and no enjoyment factor.
Ignoring forcefield because its such a balance nightmare - I'm not sure if spells are too strong or just too easy. Spells simply net too large of a reward for the minimal skill it takes to use them (talking mechanically here, perhaps not so much tactically). I dont see the problem as so much that games can be decided in seconds by a few spells in the right place, but more that it just really not that impressive to witness. I can think of BW games that were decided almost as quickly, watching somebody get a perfect plague in BW is somewhat different to blanketing a whole army with fungal in SC2. I'm not even sure that overpowering synergies are that problematic as long as it something thats exciting to watch because it requires skills (see shuttle/reaver?).
However, its hard to see how Blizzard can make existing spells more apm intensive without the removal of smart casting and I can understand why they put it in the first place and why they'd be very reluctant to remove it. A possible solution might be to nerf existing spells so the reward is more in line with their ease of use, but I still think that leaves this problem where apm is sort of a forgotten resource, and not just in respect to spell casting. (Macro mechanics were a good idea for WoL. Lets get some Micro mechanics for HoTS please Blizzard :D)
I really don't like the way that things are going in terms of community figures are raising a point and then attempting to raise their own little mob to ram it down whoever’s throat.
What happened to the days where balance and game design would only be discussed by those in authority and knowledge, those elitist few? Now it seems anyone with a point, in order to prove that point, must raise a mob of tweets, emails, threads. Yet what faith can we put in this mob? The mob literally knows nothing about the point they are endorsing. What authority does this mob have to judge the merits of Gretorp’s, Destiny’s or anyone else’s argument? None.
Yet why is the mob the one with the power – or more accurately, the source of power being exploited here? Think how many people skim read the thread, think ‘hey I know this guy from NASL,’ I’m gonna retweet this to high heaven. It is these people that are being given the power to change SC2 – not the smart elitists that actually know their shit. This will lead, if it hasn't already, to the state where those that can rustle the biggest crowd to hammer on blizzards door will be able to effect whatever changes they see fit.
I'm not disagreeing with the point, far from it - I have no opinion whatsoever. I am literally a bystander.
I thought that the SC scene was the mother of all technocracies, not a mob.
I love the idea of the Ghost planting mines and not having EMP while the Raven has then. I guess, my suggestion would be to give the Raven the "missile spell" of the Warhound (or something to that effect with splash) to give it an attack spell at least should shields or mana not be the purpose of using it. I just found it odd that you have a ship on the front lines without a real means to defend itself, at least just once before it goes down.
I never really liked Sentries and Motherships when I play Protoss. I only use Guardian Shield if I have sentries and never really aimed for building a mothership. I found it silly that a mothership had such weak attacks with a "spell decider". It just didn't make sense to me to use it.
When I started to play WoL, I always found it odd that it seemed like the Stalker was weak compared to its counterparts (unless you had good blink micro). But with a sentry backup, it would at least increase its viability and survivability in straight up engagements. So I figured I'd just take it as it is. I never really thought that maybe the Sentry could be affecting the balancing of the whole gateway set of units because of its skillset. It did give a different point of view altogether. I remember in the beginning, the blame was actually pointed at the warp function against the gateway. No one stuck to gateway as there was no reason to stick to gateways. I think this could also be explored prior to HoTS.
I think Sase's post about Zerg having too great of a vision because of creep had some merits. Back in BW, you actually had to pay for creep colony's and actually build them. Now they are almost free and can widely spread. I think is what actually makes it difficult in the late game to "engage strategically" for practically everyone assuming the map has little to no airspace outside land masses. There may really need to be a cost to use the creep tumors, maybe by giving the previous tumor "mana" so it needs to charge up first before it spreads the next one? I'm not sure how that plays out but at least it doesn't greatly prevent the creep spread by outright changing the creep tumor concept for SC2.
As for Terran, I think my biggest gripe is with the Siege Tank. I really don't understand why it is so weak in siege mode. Maybe if the buff affects too much of the balance against other races then an increase of its supply cost would offset that. I just feel that tank lines are too easily/quickly busted and the weight of the balance suddenly shifts to the other player. Tank mode is okay but the siege capabilities don't really do much other than range. Maybe increase atk when in siege but cut down on the range a bit?
Watching replays of the HoTS nowadays is a bit more enjoyable as there is more variety at least to some extent compared to before but the air battles seem a bit too weird. The Tempest either needs splash damage or more dmg (just one or the other and not both). If it does get the range upgrade, I hope you could switch between the two features. Say 5 with long range while 3 with short range but splash (like an autocast activate ability that you can choose to enable/disable thus reactivating the disable stats).
Widow Mines I still find to be wierd. I don't really think they should be hitting cloaked units
Just a few thoughts of mine and open to discussion.
On October 19 2012 22:15 17Sphynx17 wrote: I love the idea of the Ghost planting mines and not having EMP while the Raven has then.
I still really don't see how giving ghosts mines would be a good idea. Mines were envisioned to be support for mech primarily (and of course also could be used in other styles). So now if you want to use them in that role, you first have to tech to ghosts before you can use them to help your mech?
Also important, what kind of mechanic does the ghost have for planting mines? Is it like vultures had? So you get fixed number of mines per ghost, in other words you have to suicide ghosts to be able to make a minefield? Which is of course completely unrealistic when playing mech. (If it was on for example hellions you could do that, then again hellion would be kinda OP with widow mines probably).
Or do you still have to pay for the mines? I see that then as the best solution, but thats probably because it is closest to the current situation. What is then the advantage compared to letting them come from the factory? Final option would be that you need energy to place them. Which has as result that when playing mech you then need to have a bunch of ghosts somewhere in the back, with as only goal to get energy so they can place mines again. Which would imo be bad design.
I just feel that tank lines are too easily/quickly busted and the weight of the balance suddenly shifts to the other player. Tank mode is okay but the siege capabilities don't really do much other than range. Maybe increase atk when in siege but cut down on the range a bit?
Lately I am trying a bit mech against toss, which kinda works mainly because their preferred mode of attack is the frontal assault a-move. When they would realise they got way superior mobility you would need tank lines instead of one blob of siege tanks. That works reasonable against other terrans (which is immediatly the main worry i have about buffing siege tanks, TvT), but if I would start making siege lines against toss they would simply walk right through them. So yeah I agree with you here.
If it does get the range upgrade, I hope you could switch between the two features. Say 5 with long range while 3 with short range but splash (like an autocast activate ability that you can choose to enable/disable thus reactivating the disable stats).
I don't expect the range upgrade to ever be added again. It is pretty much impossible to balance a unit that can shoot so far.
On October 19 2012 22:15 17Sphynx17 wrote: I love the idea of the Ghost planting mines and not having EMP while the Raven has then.
I still really don't see how giving ghosts mines would be a good idea. Mines were envisioned to be support for mech primarily (and of course also could be used in other styles). So now if you want to use them in that role, you first have to tech to ghosts before you can use them to help your mech?
Also important, what kind of mechanic does the ghost have for planting mines? Is it like vultures had? So you get fixed number of mines per ghost, in other words you have to suicide ghosts to be able to make a minefield? Which is of course completely unrealistic when playing mech. (If it was on for example hellions you could do that, then again hellion would be kinda OP with widow mines probably).
Or do you still have to pay for the mines? I see that then as the best solution, but thats probably because it is closest to the current situation. What is then the advantage compared to letting them come from the factory? Final option would be that you need energy to place them. Which has as result that when playing mech you then need to have a bunch of ghosts somewhere in the back, with as only goal to get energy so they can place mines again. Which would imo be bad design.
Well, that is the idea I have at the moment. The idea also extends to buff/alter the tanks so that it doesn't need as much assistance early on. This is the current mindset I have regarding this which is why I proposed increase siege mode damage but reducing range maybe. Or keeping the range of the tank with increased damage but the tank costs an additional supply at least so you don't have too many of them.
As to how the mines would work, I really believe a cooldown or mana cost mechanism would be ideal. I don't think a limited number of uses for a certain skill would be the proper approach. With the approach of having a cooldown or mana consumption set, at least that prevents your ghosts from being a "tanya" from Red Alert. Also, the mines could theoretically have a duration before they become duds. If you place the mines in the fog of war you also gain vision of the area which can trigger the mine to explode. So this prevents Terran from obtaining or managing to envelop majority of the map with mines as they have an active time duration only, say 180 seconds to 240 seconds (something divisible by 3 at least). This method makes one ghost have 3 active mines max, and once you approach to the point of having a fourth active mine, the first one becomes a dud. Your ghost ends up remaining to be useful althroughout, the mines still help mech or become spotters even with their limited range.
If it does get the range upgrade, I hope you could switch between the two features. Say 5 with long range while 3 with short range but splash (like an autocast activate ability that you can choose to enable/disable thus reactivating the disable stats).
I don't expect the range upgrade to ever be added again. It is pretty much impossible to balance a unit that can shoot so far.
Well, I'm not expecting the old range cause that was just plain silly. Say a default tempest (mid tier) could have a range of 6. Default however to it, is that it has splash damage at least to its current attack instead of just single target. Once you get fleet beacon, you can research to double the range to 12 (actively or through autocast) with a small damage buff to structures/massive but attack speed is reduced to it and splash is removed when the skill is active. However, once you disable it, the tempest itself reverts back to 6 range with splash without the atk bonus of it when it is in "siege mode". Also, in "siege mode", they move like overlords without speed (kind of like the capital ship wars map in the custom games section - forgot the name)
This is my take on it at least that way, the range is not abused to harass the mineral line. Given a slower rate of fire, it prevents it from being to op when in siege mode at the same time, the AI may end up attacking 1 unit with 3 or 4 tempest when you just leave them to attack by themselves (no micro basically). But the option to revert to 6 range prevents them from being sitting ducks. The splash at least gives them a fighting chance but at the same time means magic boxing is effective against them. So the enemy at least needs to micro a bit and not just a move on your tempest to defend or he risks losing his air defense.
On October 19 2012 08:23 Mo0Rauder wrote: *Opinion* on how to fix HoTS/Toss:
1) Carrier; bring back the same leash micro with interceptors as was in BW.. This in itself will solve some issues regarding people who complain about the boring build-up to colossus fights and their quick outcome, as there would be more people playing stargate builds. Which have more mid-game flavor than the buildup and 3 basing that can occur in the colossus wars. (imo colossus is cool anyway but that's just me and I can understand why some people hate the unit.)
2) Forcefield; Probably the most broken/annoying thing about playing/facing toss for a million reasons discussed in this thread. IMO queens should be able to knock down a FF, this would allow zergs to better deal with the immortal timing push that is probably the silliest thing in the game currently. This would also add an incentive for micro regarding sniping/protecting/knocking down ff's with queens, and perhaps would add an interesting dynamic for a mass queenstyle/roach defensive style vs the immortal sentry builds since queens would also be good vs stargate style.
3) Paid Name Changes; I think everyone agrees with this, anyone who doesn't feel free to voice your opinion on the matter and be slaughtered by 1000 flamers.
The immortal FF push is done so frequently because the alternative is to play a super hard ultra turtle macro game vs. the zerg super army and either get a perfect vortex or auto-die. Protoss needs a stronger ability to pressure without going all-in, while not strengthening the all-ins, and a better ability to deal with the BL/infestor death push.
Yes the push is very strong and hard to stop, but if you take that away without fixing toss elsewhere to give them strong pressure, you've actually just guaranteed that every ZvP is a zerg rush to broods with super economy and Protoss getting rolled before they can actually deal with that composition.
I agree that the Immo sentry timing push is done to get away from the "late game dynamics" of Zerg. However I feel you are overlooking the carrier buff that I suggested involving interceptor leash micro. You would now have another VERY POWERFUL unit in the late game, along with that buff and the MSC recall (MSC and Carriers have the same speed so using recall repositioning tactics when pushing/defending wouldn't even require a brian at the lowest levels of play). I'm also not sure if you have played Zerg when facing the Immo/sentry push but stopping that push when executed properly is equally challenging as facing the full scale Zerg army when you (as toss) have to make perfect ff's archon toilets/storms/mothership micro to avoid parasite, ect. Which is why I suggested that queens should be knocking down FF's. I feel these 2 changes would help a lot with the situations that P/Z face in their matchup.
Very nice, Gretorp. This writeup is the closest thing I've found to my own opinion on some of the most foundational issues in SC2. I think a lot of other things would work themselves out (or at least get better) once these were fixed or removed.
It only took me about 3-4 months of playing P to realize that forcefields were the reason that none of my gateway units mathed to anything close to efficient against other T1. Zealots absolutely need forcefields to be anything other than an "imminent threat" of damage instead of actual damage, and stalkers are such weak damage for the cost because it's assumed that you're not fighting their whole army at once. My first idea was also a snare/slow patch instead, but I'm not sure that's better enough. Maybe it would be... the entire opposing army could get in range to contribute to a fight, but would be delayed. Zealots could catch up and actually do some damage. It's still modifying the battlefield, but I guess it's just making choices harder for the opponent, and not removing choices completely.
Once I started seeing vortex use in tournaments, it was the same thing.
Battlefield/terrain manipulation is required for Protoss because their army isn't as efficient or cost effective as Zerg or Terran without it. I agree that battlefield manipulation removes opportunities to micro, and I think even worse than that is it reduces the game to singular instants that determine who wins. It's not about decision making, or mechanics (in the macro sense), if you flub a FF or Vortex you probably lose and if you get a great one you probably win. That's not fun to watch, imo, and not fun to play. I've almost exclusively played 2v2s because FFs are more of a liability there than a help, and I usually have my partner's lings or marines to work with instead, which feels a lot better. I don't want my games to come down to a split second of FF use to determine whether I win or lose.
Primarily, I'd love to see FF and Vortex go away entirely and see what balance measures would be needed to bring things back in line. I think it would offer a lot more design space in a lot of the aspects of the game. One issue would be warpgate, though. Warpgate didn't strike me as part of the problem early on in terms of gateway unit power, but I can see how if there were no forcefields, and therefore stronger gateway units, then warp ins might become a problem. I think the lack of high-ground warpins coming in HotS is probably enough of a nerf to start with and balance can happen from there. As long as you aren't letting Protoss hide a pylon IN your base, stronger gateway units shouldn't be too strong in the early game. Of course Warp Prisms would be another story...
Second, on your other topic of all-or-nothing spells, I'd love to see them toned down or something. I don't enjoy watching the feedback/emp/colossus/viking merry go round in PvT, but at least there's more going on than just a single spell to determine the outcome. I understand why terran and zerg don't like Storms... marines and lings melt pretty fast. But, they are also some of the fastest ground units in the game and they can move out of storms without taking lethal damage, ASSUMING that there are no forcefields. EMP and fungal are very different... you instantaneously know you're taking all of the damage.
Anyway, I promised myself I wouldn't get too wordy. Just another +1 here, this is exactly how I'd like to see things change, at least in a beta setting or a custom map.
-- Bah, and one more thing... this isn't about winrates, it's about balance. Obviously they've tweaked things to arrive at roughly 50/50 winrates (most of the time), but it's the how of those wins that is problematic. 6 months ago people were pointing out that Terrans were too strong early game based on their early time win rate, but they were also pointing out that Terrans had weak lategame and were thus just doing early all-ins as their best chance to win. Balancing "the best early game all-ins" against "the best 2-base timing attacks" against "the best late game max army" and just letting winrates even out by who controls which of those things is most relevant isn't actually balance. All 3 races should have access to the same features: early game pressure, mid-game multi-prong harass, and strong late-game armies. And other features I'm sure.
I like your thoughts Gretorp. But I do think there is another problem with toss that you are forgetting. That is warpgate. When protoss attacks it is almost an all-in bacause either you win or you lose all your units and are way behind. This really needs to be reworked.
On October 20 2012 03:40 Akilleus wrote: I like your thoughts Gretorp. But I do think there is another problem with toss that you are forgetting. That is warpgate. When protoss attacks it is almost an all-in bacause either you win or you lose all your units and are way behind. This really needs to be reworked.
That's what recall is for and why is any attack all in?
Just retreat. Watch the later games in Proleague last season for SC2 and watch how loads of protoss players managed to attack and then retreat.
On October 20 2012 03:40 Akilleus wrote: I like your thoughts Gretorp. But I do think there is another problem with toss that you are forgetting. That is warpgate. When protoss attacks it is almost an all-in bacause either you win or you lose all your units and are way behind. This really needs to be reworked.
That's what recall is for and why is any attack all in?
Just retreat. Watch the later games in Proleague last season for SC2 and watch how loads of protoss players managed to attack and then retreat.
As protoss you can't lose any gas units without trading really well or you fall behind and can be punished any number of ways. It's also really hard to retreat against the typical compositions you face: marauders and fungal growth. (Also the main units of terran and zerg are faster than all protoss units -- stim bio and ling/roach.)
So by default it is difficult to retreat successfully after engaging, especially if it's an attack on their side of the map.
That doesn't mean it's impossible though, and as the metagame settles and engagement techniques develop, players are figuring out how to do it.
The overall incentives though are for protoss to either all-in or a build a deathball. This isn't really related to warpgate.
Nerf gaurdian shield, remove FF, and remove mothership? Your talking about removing the only way protoss can survive, and then also removing they only way they can kill zerg late game? Why not just remove protoss altogether, since they will be useless if these changes are implemented.
EMP is already enough nerfed, but I agree about nerfing infestor (and buff other midgame) and mothership should stay but vortex less strong. They need to nerf fungal, colossus, movespeed difference in general. By the way i'm zerg
I just want to say that I agree with this post wholeheartedly. However, I fear they will not be willing to change the design so drastically, and moreover that many (if not most) Protoss pros will be strongly against the sentry rework. In a way, can't really blame them for that since they'd be the ones having to adapt the most to the changes. Remember, some Protoss pros really made their careers out of good forcefield placement.
I'd just like to add that the "forcefield issue" was raised very early on and kept being raised for many months after that. Ultimately, people kind of came to terms with the fact that Protoss is designed around it and it's not going to change so the crying toned down considerably, but I'm sure most non-Protoss players still hate FF to this day. And for the record, I'm not saying it's imbalanced, I'm saying it's "stupid" or "bad design" or whatever term you like. Similar to some of the other things the OP mentions, like infestors/ghosts.
On October 20 2012 06:51 AmericanPsycho wrote: Nerf gaurdian shield, remove FF, and remove mothership? Your talking about removing the only way protoss can survive, and then also removing they only way they can kill zerg late game? Why not just remove protoss altogether, since they will be useless if these changes are implemented.
You are confusing reworking with nerfing. Reworking means take a good look at all these things and be prepared to make major changes to make the game play out better (more fun to play/watch, higher skill cap, etc.). It seems a large majority of Sc2 players (pro or not) are not very happy with where the WoL metagame converged to, and it did so mostly because of these design problems (some of which were really hard to predict ahead of time, but some of which, like the FF, were not).
On October 18 2012 17:32 Teoita wrote: While your analysis of Protoss is nice and it does bring up good points, you forget to mention one thing: warpgate, and PvP in particular.
PvP will always be a warpgate-timing fest if you don't allow a single forcefield to fully block off a ramp to prevent a high ground warp-in, as we see on maps like TDA, and as we saw back in the day when you could warp in above the forcefield.
The reason PvP has evolved as much as it has in this last year or so is because 4gates are more easily defendible with greedier opening. If you can defend with a greedier opening, you can go into the midgame with more developed tech, so now we see stuff like blink obs and robo stargate.
Back in the day, teching to two things at once would have been either incredibly dangerous (because modern PvP openings aren't safe vs the older 4gates), or incredibly slow, so by the time the other guy has his one base blink/colossus/phoenix timing ready, you are much much more likely to die.
tl;dr: it's not just sentries that screw up Protoss, it's the combination of sentries and warpgate that do. If you change one you also have to drastically tweak the other in order to not screw PvP up completely.
edit: @Nerchio: as a pro player, do you think it would be worth it to invest time and effort into that PTR, trying to sort out the game's design, instead of pracitcing? I feel like for an actual pro, it would probably not be worth it, and they would rather practice a game that's not as good to keep posting good enough results to "get to the end of the month".
Warpgate isn't that bad. In HOTS, purify gives the defender an advantage, so you could skip forcefields entirely and play economically by having almost as many units as your opponent + purify. I suspect that when all is said and done, 1 gate FE will become standard in HOTS PvP with or without forcefield.
On October 20 2012 06:51 AmericanPsycho wrote: Nerf gaurdian shield, remove FF, and remove mothership? Your talking about removing the only way protoss can survive, and then also removing they only way they can kill zerg late game? Why not just remove protoss altogether, since they will be useless if these changes are implemented.
You are confusing reworking with nerfing. Reworking means take a good look at all these things and be prepared to make major changes to make the game play out better (more fun to play/watch, higher skill cap, etc.). It seems a large majority of Sc2 players (pro or not) are not very happy with where the WoL metagame converged to, and it did so mostly because of these design problems (some of which were really hard to predict ahead of time, but some of which, like the FF, were not).
Reworking shouldn't totally nerf forcefield, but it has to reduce how dominating it is -- it would make it less powerful, not as strong, aka nerf it. Otherwise you can't buff zealot / stalker / immo and the change would be pointless in addressing the design problem.
It would undoubtedly change all protoss matchups a lot and probably take a while to balance, but it'd probably be close to balanced at the outset.
Really love your post and what you are trying to do here, but there are a couple things I fundamentally disagree on:
1. Funnily enough, as powerful as casters are in SC2, they were actually ten times MORE powerful in Brood War and BW was a far more balanced and dynamic game than SC2... so I don't think making casters less powerful is the answer.
2. Also, you talk about EMP as if it is overpowered vs Protoss, but Psi-Storm is just as powerful vs Terran in that matchup if not even more powerful. Neither should actually be able to end the game as long as your opponent is any good. A top level Protoss player can easily prevent a blanket EMP just as a top level Terran can easily prevent a blanket storm.
Those things said, I do appreciate the spirit and the vast majority of the content of your post. I'm also not 100% opposed to your suggestion of removing HSM and putting EMP onto the Raven. The Ghost's Snipe and Nuke Calldown would certainly still have their places so yeah... hope you read this post even though its fifteen pages in
On October 20 2012 06:51 AmericanPsycho wrote: Nerf gaurdian shield, remove FF, and remove mothership? Your talking about removing the only way protoss can survive, and then also removing they only way they can kill zerg late game? Why not just remove protoss altogether, since they will be useless if these changes are implemented.
You clearly did not read (or perhaps did not understand the spirit of) this post. He's not talking about nerfing Toss, he's talking about reworking the race to become more dynamic and would nerf those specific things whilst buffing or adding new things in their place.
so many people in this thread either not reading his whole post or just making shallow comments that have nothing to do with what he's talking about.
thank you for this post gretorp. i'm glad you didn't just try to single out one stupid specific thing like warpgates or colossus. you clearly struck on something when you said that support spells as a whole are far too dominant in this game. very well written.
On October 19 2012 00:05 DarkSeth wrote: This thread represents everything that is wrong with the gaming scene nowadays. The consumers demand to be heard. It is this that destroys franchises, not the corporations wish to make money. You can whine and complain as much as you want about how Blizzard turned into an arrogant game developer that does not listen, and are completely ignorant to consumer feedback (which they are not). They still have MUCH more experience in designing, creating, and balancing games than anyone in this thread with MAYBE an exception or two. So for the love of God, cut them some slack. Blizzard has delivered so many times, it is revolting to see this lack of faith. Most of the mistakes they make are because of their attempt to please the masses, which will never achieve the best possible result, because the average person is actually not that bright.
Remember all those games that blew you away? That were so innovating and fresh they made your jaw drop in awe? Odds are you never tried to influence how that game would turn out. Odds are you TRUSTED the developer to deliver a good game. Odds are it took you by surprise, because you did not have a list of what YOU wanted in the game.
Now, I am not saying that the SC2 team at Blizzard is perfect, but they are damn far from as incompetent as many of you paint them out to be. In most cases Blizzard delivers, and sitting here reading post upon post about how broken SC2 is, is fucking infuriating. Many of you are so obscenely focused on finding something negative to point out that you are no longer capable of even enjoying the game, being caught up in your crusade to change the game into your own liking. Many of you are so obscenely focused on whining that in lack of something to actually complain about you just jump on the bandwagon, completely clueless as to what you are actually advocating. That being said, there are off course a lot of good ideas, and well thought through feedback. Sadly much of it disappears in the ocean of near aggressive complaints.
I am going to have to stop here. I could go on and on about the problems with forums, and consumer feedback, so I will leave you with this. Do not forget what brought you to the game to begin with. What made you spend hours playing. What gave you all the entertainment you undoubtedly have had. Do not forget that when it all boils down, every game designer and programmer do what they do because they love games, and because they want to create something that will be appreciated and enjoyed.
Great post. I could not agree more. I posted this a little while ago:
Too often ideas are posted because they are "fun" or "cool" which does not necessarily make them any good. So many suggestions also imply a wish to do anything you want in the game. There does not seem to be a realization that the game has limits, has rules. That your chosen race has limits, has rules. That the fun in the game comes from negotiating those limits and rules. In other words, being aware of the trade-offs that are inherent in making decisions in a RTS. If you don't like those limitations, those rules: play a different race or play a different game.
Believe me, you won't be missed.
So much of feedback is little more than "I want to do X but can't" or "Why can't I do Y?" and then "Change the game/my race! Because I want to do X and Y - at the same time!" etc. Occasionally they may have a point. But only on occasion. Most of the time, it's little more than a waste of space and time. Not all feedback is good feedback. Blizzard should, rightly, ignore most feedback thrown at it for SC2.
I hope the Dev team puts their head down and do what they have to do. 9/10 times what they come up with will be better than the cabal of self appointed designers and keyboard experts on TL (and Reddit). If the game lives on, great. If not, you know what? No worries. Moaning about SC2 and E-Sports on the forums is a good definition of a First World problem.
I think a good number of people need a break from TL. That or just press the "find match" button. I am going to take my own suggestion and just play or do other things irl for a few days. Some of the rest of you may want to do the same.
Can someone start a pole on a new page seeing how many people want blizzard to reply to this epic post? I would but I'm a scrub, and I can't believe blizzard hasn't replied to th this post yet
On October 19 2012 00:05 DarkSeth wrote: This thread represents everything that is wrong with the gaming scene nowadays. The consumers demand to be heard. It is this that destroys franchises, not the corporations wish to make money. You can whine and complain as much as you want about how Blizzard turned into an arrogant game developer that does not listen, and are completely ignorant to consumer feedback (which they are not). They still have MUCH more experience in designing, creating, and balancing games than anyone in this thread with MAYBE an exception or two. So for the love of God, cut them some slack. Blizzard has delivered so many times, it is revolting to see this lack of faith. Most of the mistakes they make are because of their attempt to please the masses, which will never achieve the best possible result, because the average person is actually not that bright.
Remember all those games that blew you away? That were so innovating and fresh they made your jaw drop in awe? Odds are you never tried to influence how that game would turn out. Odds are you TRUSTED the developer to deliver a good game. Odds are it took you by surprise, because you did not have a list of what YOU wanted in the game.
Now, I am not saying that the SC2 team at Blizzard is perfect, but they are damn far from as incompetent as many of you paint them out to be. In most cases Blizzard delivers, and sitting here reading post upon post about how broken SC2 is, is fucking infuriating. Many of you are so obscenely focused on finding something negative to point out that you are no longer capable of even enjoying the game, being caught up in your crusade to change the game into your own liking. Many of you are so obscenely focused on whining that in lack of something to actually complain about you just jump on the bandwagon, completely clueless as to what you are actually advocating. That being said, there are off course a lot of good ideas, and well thought through feedback. Sadly much of it disappears in the ocean of near aggressive complaints.
I am going to have to stop here. I could go on and on about the problems with forums, and consumer feedback, so I will leave you with this. Do not forget what brought you to the game to begin with. What made you spend hours playing. What gave you all the entertainment you undoubtedly have had. Do not forget that when it all boils down, every game designer and programmer do what they do because they love games, and because they want to create something that will be appreciated and enjoyed.
Great post. I could not agree more. I posted this a little while ago:
Too often ideas are posted because they are "fun" or "cool" which does not necessarily make them any good. So many suggestions also imply a wish to do anything you want in the game. There does not seem to be a realization that the game has limits, has rules. That your chosen race has limits, has rules. That the fun in the game comes from negotiating those limits and rules. In other words, being aware of the trade-offs that are inherent in making decisions in a RTS. If you don't like those limitations, those rules, play a different race or play a different game. Believe me, you won't be missed.
So much of feedback is little more than "I want to do X but can't" or "Why I can't I do Y?". "Change the game/my race!" etc.
Occasionally they may have a point. But only on occasion. Most of the time, it's little more than a waste of space and time.
Not all feedback is good feedback. Blizzard should, rightly, ignore most feedback thrown at it for SC2.
I hope the Dev team puts their head down and do what they have to do. 9/10 times what they come up with will be better than the cabal of self appointed designers and keyboard experts on TL (and Reddit). If the game lives on, great. If not, you know what? No worries. Moaning about SC2 and E-Sports on the forums is a good definition of a First World problem.
I think a good number of people need a break from TL. That or just press the "find match" button. I am going to take my own suggestion and just play or do other things irl for a few days. I suggest some of the rest of you do the same.
GLHF chaps.
But wouldn't it be better to just keep channels open for possible suggestion that might actually work to better it for the sake of everyone? Granted you don't get evrey suggestion as that is just wrong and stupid. But at least it gives more opportunity to brainstorm.
Look at Bnet 2.0 changes, they are listening. If the devs really shouldn't listen, they wouldn't have done it either way. So I think there is merit and at least a purpose in trying to reach out to the devs. Who knows, it might actually work and they may actually listen.
As long as we are not bashing each other's ideas but rather contributing to a healthy discussion of what the pros and cons of each and every action/change is, we might actually be helping them give us a better gaming experience. Who in the end will be using it anyway? Wouldn't it be us?
Yes, we are not experienced balance experts, we are not developers of games yada yada yada.. but still, we are the users and we actually manage to experience what effect their design took on to the experience/game. So it has to count for something.
As long as you are not just shouting X unit OP only, then it is worth exploring at least first through discussion and maybe making a custom map as one user suggested to see how it fares (but that its limitations as well). But I hope you get the idea.
On October 20 2012 11:57 kochanfe wrote: Really love your post and what you are trying to do here, but there are a couple things I fundamentally disagree on:
1. Funnily enough, as powerful as casters are in SC2, they were actually ten times MORE powerful in Brood War and BW was a far more balanced and dynamic game than SC2... so I don't think making casters less powerful is the answer.
2. Also, you talk about EMP as if it is overpowered vs Protoss, but Psi-Storm is just as powerful vs Terran in that matchup if not even more powerful. Neither should actually be able to end the game as long as your opponent is any good. A top level Protoss player can easily prevent a blanket EMP just as a top level Terran can easily prevent a blanket storm.
Those things said, I do appreciate the spirit and the vast majority of the content of your post. I'm also not 100% opposed to your suggestion of removing HSM and putting EMP onto the Raven. The Ghost's Snipe and Nuke Calldown would certainly still have their places so yeah... hope you read this post even though its fifteen pages in
:-) I actually read every post and definitely do keep everything in consideration.
I'm very subject to change and after reading some people's posts I often times said I'd like to change my OP a bit but left it b/c it's till fine :-)
@#1 autocast complicates things with that analysis but i definitely know what you mean. Think if stasis was in the game or recall with 4 supply(arbiter)! oh my goodness!
and yes i kind of forgot storm for some odd reason, but it definitely need to be factored into the equation.
Forcefields need to just flat out GTFO from Sc2 and that's coming from a protoss.
FFs are the bane of our early game problems. Rather than actually fix balance in the early game by some other sort of buff for Toss Blizzard simply put a band-aid on the issue in the form of FFs
On October 19 2012 00:05 DarkSeth wrote: This thread represents everything that is wrong with the gaming scene nowadays. The consumers demand to be heard. It is this that destroys franchises, not the corporations wish to make money. You can whine and complain as much as you want about how Blizzard turned into an arrogant game developer that does not listen, and are completely ignorant to consumer feedback (which they are not). They still have MUCH more experience in designing, creating, and balancing games than anyone in this thread with MAYBE an exception or two. So for the love of God, cut them some slack. Blizzard has delivered so many times, it is revolting to see this lack of faith. Most of the mistakes they make are because of their attempt to please the masses, which will never achieve the best possible result, because the average person is actually not that bright.
Remember all those games that blew you away? That were so innovating and fresh they made your jaw drop in awe? Odds are you never tried to influence how that game would turn out. Odds are you TRUSTED the developer to deliver a good game. Odds are it took you by surprise, because you did not have a list of what YOU wanted in the game.
Now, I am not saying that the SC2 team at Blizzard is perfect, but they are damn far from as incompetent as many of you paint them out to be. In most cases Blizzard delivers, and sitting here reading post upon post about how broken SC2 is, is fucking infuriating. Many of you are so obscenely focused on finding something negative to point out that you are no longer capable of even enjoying the game, being caught up in your crusade to change the game into your own liking. Many of you are so obscenely focused on whining that in lack of something to actually complain about you just jump on the bandwagon, completely clueless as to what you are actually advocating. That being said, there are off course a lot of good ideas, and well thought through feedback. Sadly much of it disappears in the ocean of near aggressive complaints.
I am going to have to stop here. I could go on and on about the problems with forums, and consumer feedback, so I will leave you with this. Do not forget what brought you to the game to begin with. What made you spend hours playing. What gave you all the entertainment you undoubtedly have had. Do not forget that when it all boils down, every game designer and programmer do what they do because they love games, and because they want to create something that will be appreciated and enjoyed.
Great post. I could not agree more. I posted this a little while ago:
Too often ideas are posted because they are "fun" or "cool" which does not necessarily make them any good. So many suggestions also imply a wish to do anything you want in the game. There does not seem to be a realization that the game has limits, has rules. That your chosen race has limits, has rules. That the fun in the game comes from negotiating those limits and rules. In other words, being aware of the trade-offs that are inherent in making decisions in a RTS. If you don't like those limitations, those rules, play a different race or play a different game. Believe me, you won't be missed.
So much of feedback is little more than "I want to do X but can't" or "Why I can't I do Y?". "Change the game/my race!" etc.
Occasionally they may have a point. But only on occasion. Most of the time, it's little more than a waste of space and time.
Not all feedback is good feedback. Blizzard should, rightly, ignore most feedback thrown at it for SC2.
I hope the Dev team puts their head down and do what they have to do. 9/10 times what they come up with will be better than the cabal of self appointed designers and keyboard experts on TL (and Reddit). If the game lives on, great. If not, you know what? No worries. Moaning about SC2 and E-Sports on the forums is a good definition of a First World problem.
I think a good number of people need a break from TL. That or just press the "find match" button. I am going to take my own suggestion and just play or do other things irl for a few days. I suggest some of the rest of you do the same.
GLHF chaps.
But wouldn't it be better to just keep channels open for possible suggestion that might actually work to better it for the sake of everyone? Granted you don't get evrey suggestion as that is just wrong and stupid. But at least it gives more opportunity to brainstorm.
Look at Bnet 2.0 changes, they are listening. If the devs really shouldn't listen, they wouldn't have done it either way. So I think there is merit and at least a purpose in trying to reach out to the devs. Who knows, it might actually work and they may actually listen.
As long as we are not bashing each other's ideas but rather contributing to a healthy discussion of what the pros and cons of each and every action/change is, we might actually be helping them give us a better gaming experience. Who in the end will be using it anyway? Wouldn't it be us?
Yes, we are not experienced balance experts, we are not developers of games yada yada yada.. but still, we are the users and we actually manage to experience what effect their design took on to the experience/game. So it has to count for something.
As long as you are not just shouting X unit OP only, then it is worth exploring at least first through discussion and maybe making a custom map as one user suggested to see how it fares (but that its limitations as well). But I hope you get the idea.
yes they did "something" but how long did they need? 2 years.... good job blizzard
This is a quality post by Gretorp, Trouble is Blizz are committed to releasing HOTS soon, so it would require a massive rebalance phase which simply isn't going to happen
Caster say at casting plenty of times : BUT WHO IS GONNA COME OUT AHEAD ? that is problem SC2 its not clear E sport game you cant see who is clearly wining or losing... Ball path ball vs ball ... hard counters and A move unites like colloss vs wikings mechanic game is bad ... SC2 sucks... i h8 that its like that younger ppl dont know what WC3micro is or SC BW... This blizzard game sucks first game that truly sucks..
i h8 to say that Sc2 is bad game...it will lest as their expansions i dont see the future of SC2 as SC BW at all or WC3....
i could live through the mod like Blizz dota if they dont fuc k up that to... Starbow and maby some other modes... simply SC2 isnt good game as could be.... i still hope blizzard will listen to the community but i dont know...
Gretorp, very good points. As a zerg player I'm probably biased, but then again there is nothing in zvz or zvt that is anywhere near as annoying as force field and vortex. And yes, from a protoss perspective it isn't ideal that they have to depend so much on those two abilities. FF wins you midgame, vortex wins you late game - or not, if you misclick, forget them or whatever. As for the bias, I'd be fine with making fungal a slow, although catching 10 marines in the lategame with a fungal isn't exactly the same thing as catching 10 brood lords with vortex.
Gretorp. Thanks for an insightful post. I hope in the long run Blizzard will make this the exiting E-sport it should have been. I mainly follow SC II by watching E-sports and find it more and more boring to watch. The reasons you mention could seriously change that for me and hopefully also for other people =)
$50k grand prize, a packed stadium in a country where sc2 has the stiffest competition with other esports, and ridiculously aggressive and dynamic games. Not to mention the dramatic story, which was awesome, by the way.
Sc2 is soo dead, right? right? lmfao
We're just not number one anymore. If you're really worried about it, quit sniffling like a child and go subscribe to another tournament and support the scene.
Edit: we're not number one, we're number two. Man, it sucks to be the second most wildly successful esport that surpassed all expectations. It's a real bummer of a gig. You guys are fucking spoiled.
I think the main focus of changing stuff like forcefields is to make it skillful to use. As in, there should be a notable difference if you use a certain unit/spell at a high masters level and at the level top tier pros play.
That way you make units/spells interesting to observe as well as to use(as it requires skill to use them). Fungal in my opinion should be a delayed-blast effect instead of just popping instantly. EMP a bit slower so you're capable of dodging it.
Forcefields are kind of problematic early game when it's almost impossible to counter them.
On October 18 2012 09:45 Thaniri wrote: Blizzard doesn't care. Starcraft can't turn the same profit that WoW did. Blizzard seems to be a company, more than a game producer. They care about maximizing profits, not necessarily making a good game.
Wrath of the lich, cataclysm, diablo 3, many aspects of sc2, and finally mists of pandaria all together combine to prove that blizzard is chasing dollars.
Blizzard needs to FIRST go back to WC3 style battle.net. With the same type of chat, customs games, and profiles, THEN BEGIN TO BALANCE. With the fundamental anti-social aspect of battle.net 0.2, it does not matter how good your game is, because people wont be playing with their friends.
First of all. Blizzard is not the problem. The developers and people working on SC2 are not the root of the problem either...
It's the publishers. Activision is ran by Kotick, who is well known for franchise destroying and profit maximising They put the pressure on the team to make the game more profitable, not more competitive.
The social side of SC2 is really bad, which means games that have much better social elements (take LoL for example) are getting more popular than ever, and being F2P when SC2 still costs £50~ 2 years after launch.
$50k grand prize, a packed stadium in a country where sc2 has the stiffest competition with other esports, and ridiculously aggressive and dynamic games. Not to mention the dramatic story, which was awesome, by the way.
Sc2 is soo dead, right? right? lmfao
We're just not number one anymore. If you're really worried about it, quit sniffling like a child and go subscribe to another tournament and support the scene.
Edit: we're not number one, we're number two. Man, it sucks to be the second most wildly successful esport that surpassed all expectations. It's a real bummer of a gig. You guys are fucking spoiled.
LoL and DOTA2 both give out $1mil in prizes.
Of course it isn't dead, but it isn't number one, or even number two. DOTA2 isn't even out yet, and is arguably already bigger.
"second most wildly successful esport that surpassed all expectations."
This is just plain wrong. During beta and previews 2008-2010, we expected so much more. We expected the whole world to explode like Korea did with BW. So no, SC2 has not "surpassed all expectations". It hasn't even come close to half of them; one of the biggest being custom game support - which in Warcraft 3 SPAWNED A GENRE, a genre that is now bigger than SC2. Just imagine what could have come from SC2's amazing engine...
On October 21 2012 05:58 malaan wrote:First of all. Blizzard is not the problem. The developers and people working on SC2 are not the root of the problem either...
It's the publishers. Activision is ran by Kotick, who is well known for franchise destroying and profit maximising They put the pressure on the team to make the game more profitable, not more competitive.
The social side of SC2 is really bad, which means games that have much better social elements (take LoL for example) are getting more popular than ever, and being F2P when SC2 still costs £50~ 2 years after launch.
Agreed. It has served Activision very well to release a sparkling new Call of Duty every year, but the quality we have come to expect from Blizzard simply doesn't fit that mould.
$50k grand prize, a packed stadium in a country where sc2 has the stiffest competition with other esports, and ridiculously aggressive and dynamic games. Not to mention the dramatic story, which was awesome, by the way.
Sc2 is soo dead, right? right? lmfao
We're just not number one anymore. If you're really worried about it, quit sniffling like a child and go subscribe to another tournament and support the scene.
Edit: we're not number one, we're number two. Man, it sucks to be the second most wildly successful esport that surpassed all expectations. It's a real bummer of a gig. You guys are fucking spoiled.
LoL and DOTA2 both give out $1mil in prizes.
Of course it isn't dead, but it isn't number one, or even number two. DOTA2 isn't even out yet, and is arguably already bigger.
"second most wildly successful esport that surpassed all expectations."
This is just plain wrong. During beta and previews 2008-2010, we expected so much more. We expected the whole world to explode like Korea did with BW. So no, SC2 has not "surpassed all expectations". It hasn't even come close to half of them; one of the biggest being custom game support - which in Warcraft 3 SPAWNED A GENRE, a genre that is now bigger than SC2. Just imagine what could have come from SC2's amazing engine...
LOL and Dota give out $1m prizes SPLIT between 5 people. That's because the companies that make them have more money to give as the rip people off with microtransactions.
$50k grand prize, a packed stadium in a country where sc2 has the stiffest competition with other esports, and ridiculously aggressive and dynamic games. Not to mention the dramatic story, which was awesome, by the way.
Sc2 is soo dead, right? right? lmfao
We're just not number one anymore. If you're really worried about it, quit sniffling like a child and go subscribe to another tournament and support the scene.
Edit: we're not number one, we're number two. Man, it sucks to be the second most wildly successful esport that surpassed all expectations. It's a real bummer of a gig. You guys are fucking spoiled.
Ok, say whatever you want... can't wait to see how magically they are going to fix the problems stated in the OP and many other places.
On October 21 2012 06:03 Qikz wrote: LOL and Dota give out $1m prizes SPLIT between 5 people. That's because the companies that make them have more money to give as the rip people off with microtransactions.
1mil/5 = 200000, which is still 4 times more than your 50k.
How are microtransactions "ripoffs"? You pay for something novel like a new skin. You don't have to buy it. Moreover, if you play enough (like progamers probably will), you can afford skins and heroes using the ingame currency.
If anything, SC2 players are ripped off for having to dish out $60 x 3 games, whereas in every single Blizzard RTS before this we paid less for 3-4 campaigns per game.
Oh and, Blizzard Activision is literalling SWIMMING in all their money. They have so much more that they could give than Riot/Valve, it's not actually funny.
my god can you people stop caring so much about LoL and other games having more viewers? (because of the split of 5 players most tournaments in Dota 2 and LoL have less money too, although of course there those million tournaments) where is the problem... it does NOT mean that SC2 is dying or whatever... there also is no other RTS with so many viewers as SC2 has.
SC2 will definitely get a lot better with each addon and i'm sure of that. Alone because of all UI related things that Blizzard intentionally left out so that we even more want to buy their addons. I must say i'm a bit worried though that game play wise HotS won't change as much as i hoped. It doesn't even matter if SC2 at the moment is very balanced (and imo it is at the highest level, BL/infestor being imba doesn't matter as much as we think, Zerg are not dominating in Korea). Both BW and TFT for WC3 changed a LOT of things game play wise, which made both of them really fun and refreshing to play.
I like lots of the things the OP mentions. Worst things spectator wise for me are Forcefields and Fungal Growth (although at the moment they are both necessary, need to change a lot of unit stats and add new spells).
Of course it isn't dead, but it isn't number one, or even number two. DOTA2 isn't even out yet, and is arguably already bigger.
"second most wildly successful esport that surpassed all expectations."
This is just plain wrong. During beta and previews 2008-2010, we expected so much more. We expected the whole world to explode like Korea did with BW. So no, SC2 has not "surpassed all expectations". It hasn't even come close to half of them; one of the biggest being custom game support - which in Warcraft 3 SPAWNED A GENRE, a genre that is now bigger than SC2. Just imagine what could have come from SC2's amazing engine...
Dota is arguably bigger? Fuck man, streetfighter IV has twice as many viewers on twitch right now. It's hyped, and I think it's a great game, but the jury is definitely still out. Dota2 might be a solid case study in how $60 and a bad ui aren't the real reason sc2 is a tough game to get into. I hope it isn't, but I'm not holding my breath.
LoL gives out $1mil, split five ways for events that occur far less frequently with a decent amount of money being fronted by the riot to supplement what sponsors bring. Popularity snowballs, so if you can put a number forward that is more attractive, that number will grow. The sponsorship money is the real measure of success.
I'm not sure where you were in 2008-2010, but I don't remember many people around here going on about how sc2 players were going to be global celebrities. We all hoped, but everyone I've talked to was very surprised by what 2011 brought. And it's not like LoL, popular as it is, has its players on ESPN.
Ok, say whatever you want... can't wait to see how magically they are going to fix the problems stated in the OP and many other places.
I agree with almost everything Gretorp said. I've been one of those obnoxious "remove warpgates" kids since the wol beta. But since the hots beta, blizzard has been unprecedentedly responsive to the community. I mean, what are we really imagining here? 72 hours of #savehots and they patch in all of our wildest dreams the next morning? Even if they dropped everything and worked on wol gameplay issues, it'd be several weeks before we they launched anything. That, and they've decided to wait until they're comfortable with hots units before the go work on wol stuff. I don't agree with that decision; I think it'd be a lot more efficient to work on your platform, and then work on your expansion, but as long as both get tended to eventually who honestly gives a fuck?
We've got that and a ui update, which is a good one, and they've all said that deadspace is to leave room for future improvements. We'll probably see in client streaming and reworked chat channels before the end.
I support savehots. Blizzard needs to hear that people haven't given up on these things. But I don't support all this doom and gloom, sc2 is already dead bullshit. I don't even think it's possible to know that sc2 has peaked. Gamers are fickle, fickle people. Things can change on a dime. It's already been said that LoL nearly died after it launched. Dota2 could explode, sc2 could too. So instead of bitching, we should go boost those viewership numbers and put a few extra bucks into the industry.
Chins up lads; we still have a lot to be happy about.
Edit: Not all of my text made it into the post for some reason ><
After a cursory review of the posts in this thread (17 pages is a little much to be re-reading the same sentiments) it seems like the issues come down to several re-occurring themes.
1. Make HotS into Broodwar (people either are suggesting removal of SC2 units or addition of BW units/mechanics) 2. Something is hard (for me) or is disliked (by me) therefore everyone else finds it hard or does not like it. 3. Blizzard doesn't know how to design/balance games 4. And then some perhaps legit complaints thrown in.
The designers/developers cannot implement every suggestion made by every player. That just makes a mess of a game. They have to have a overriding idea and design/develop towards that, while being on the lookout for anything egregiously wrong. It is a function of one not being able to please all of the people all of the time.
As an analogy, it is like that episode of the Simpson's where Homer learns he has a half-brother who owns a car company. He is given the task, as the "average" guy to design a car, and he comes up with a lot of cool ideas. But when the engineers (who are trained to design cars and had designed cars) implemented all of his ideas, what resulted was a bloated, ugly, overpriced monstrosity.
I'm not suggesting there aren't legitimate balance concerns with the introduction of new units/abilities, but obviously this is what the lengthy Beta period is for. And as far as I can tell, the designers are listening, maybe not to the level some seem to expect (or think they are somehow owed.) but more than is really required.
On October 21 2012 12:55 mcdrewbie wrote: After a cursory review of the posts in this thread (17 pages is a little much to be re-reading the same sentiments) it seems like the issues come down to several re-occurring themes.
1. Make HotS into Broodwar (people either are suggesting removal of SC2 units or addition of BW units/mechanics) 2. Something is hard (for me) or is disliked (by me) therefore everyone else finds it hard or does not like it. 3. Blizzard doesn't know how to design/balance games 4. And then some perhaps legit complaints thrown in.
The designers/developers cannot implement every suggestion made by every player. That just makes a mess of a game. They have to have a overriding idea and design/develop towards that, while being on the lookout for anything egregiously wrong. It is a function of one not being able to please all of the people all of the time.
As an analogy, it is like that episode of the Simpson's where Homer learns he has a half-brother who owns a car company. He is given the task, as the "average" guy to design a car, and he comes up with a lot of cool ideas. But when the engineers (who are trained to design cars and had designed cars) implemented all of his ideas, what resulted was a bloated, ugly, overpriced monstrosity.
I'm not suggesting there aren't legitimate balance concerns with the introduction of new units/abilities, but obviously this is what the lengthy Beta period is for. And as far as I can tell, the designers are listening, maybe not to the level some seem to expect (or think they are somehow owed.) but more than is really required.
in general you are right, but which balanced and well designed games did they make? c&c, battle for middle earth and dawn of war? oh yes sry they were big and well balanced esports titles...
On October 21 2012 06:36 HolydaKing wrote: SC2 will definitely get a lot better with each addon and i'm sure of that. Alone because of all UI related things that Blizzard intentionally left out so that we even more want to buy their addons.
This. It was not an accident that those features were left out of WoL. Blizzard has built SC2 around three separate games, not one, and they're not exactly idiots when it comes to making money. I don't think it's possible for SC2 to die before LotV.
On October 21 2012 06:36 HolydaKing wrote: I must say i'm a bit worried though that game play wise HotS won't change as much as i hoped.
The WoL metagame shifts at the drop of a patch, so I wouldn't be too worried about that.
1) encourage splitting 2) discourage deathballing 3) make for more interesting unit relatinonships were unit a beats unit b until unit b reaches critical mass (think muta - sair in BW)
more dodgeable/delayed attacks to
1) create tension 2) reward thinking ahead 3) allow for more micro
nukes are one of the only good example for this in sc2. fungal and emp are instant without projectile for reasons i never understood. very bad design decision from the start, since the engine would easily support such things.
fixes:
- give emp a visible projectile and bigger aoe - make fungal target a specific area and take some delay to build up a slowing/damaging effect there - create other abilities with such mechanics
less abilities that make it impossible to get away from a big engagement
a) no slow on marauders b) no fungal insta-rooting c) forcefield needs to be reworked
fixes:
- fungal should work like suggested above. NO ROOTING - replace slow on marauders with an anti-armor ability, maybe with small aoe, to make them give synergy to marines but not work as a pure core unit any more - give hydras more speed off creep - rework forcefield, maybe into an ability that pushes units away with a force wave
more harass options
pretty much self-explanatory. right now i think the thing that limits harass isnt the lack of options, but the harass defense being way too good for all the races.
fixes:
- get rid of queen anti-air and take back the range upgrade for its anti-ground attack. - NO FUNGAL ROOTING - nerf repair, maybe also nerf PF - make warpgates only be able to warp in at warp prisms, not pylons, make them able to still work as gateways after converting to warp gates
more transitions in late game
all the races max out way too fast and reach a state where they have everything and got nothing worth to tech to
fixes:
- buff carrier and buff BC and/or nerf corruptors and vikings anti-air - increase build time all across the board for tech structures - either increase time for upgrades or give them 5 tiers instead of 3 - lower supply cost for some units
there you go. i fixed it. now someone make a custom map or a good mod because with the ignorance blizzard displayed ever since start of WoL beta there is no way they will ever fix this game
On October 21 2012 06:36 HolydaKing wrote: ... It doesn't even matter if SC2 at the moment is very balanced (and imo it is at the highest level, BL/infestor being imba doesn't matter as much as we think, Zerg are not dominating in Korea)...
i want to see winrate for zerg after they get bl/infestor out. that would be a good measure of just how imbalanced it is - the only reason they are losing is that they suck until they get that comp, because they have no good units for midgame since hydras are too expensive and slow
First on protoss two base timing attacks being too powerful vs zerg...we don't have any other option. One base attacks don't work because queens and spines are too powerful and too easy to make. Macro games don't work because inject larvae and zerg creep scales exponentially. For all the talk of mothership countering zerg...in reality there are very few perfect archon toilets in actual late-game PvZ. Zerg definitely has the advantage vs late game protoss.
On forcefield being too strong... The issue should never really be on strengths since that can be infinitely rebalanced by weakening/strengthening other units, but rather on how fun it is. Forcefield is fun and should stay. The problem with protoss two base timing attacks, is not forcefield (which is a little overrated as each sentry costs 100 gas which really hurts colossi/upgrades/air/twi-light tech). But rather the warp-gate mechanic and the colossi. Rally distance provides a significant advantage to the defender and when you remove that, you can win based on very slight unit advantages. I myself like the idea that warpgate be a 'local spell' only to start with, and then only becomes a 'remote' spell after a significant upgrade.
Colossi are too one-dimensional. By being so fast and having such good range they can determine a battle from afar. They either dominate a battle without AA, or are dominated from AA. It's too simplistic and this unit should be removed from the game and replaced with a proper siege units that is not vulnerable to AA, but has a proper weakness and is very slow (like the reaver ).
If colossi/WP were addressed, then protoss could be properly buffed. The stalkers should not be buffed...yes they are cost ineffective, but if buffed nobody would build any other unit and we would have stalker deathballs. The zealot is the main reason early games protoss has so many problems with zerg/terran. Vs terran they are kited by marine/marauder in perpetuity. The zealot is ultimately a hp tank for stalkers now, or a building destroyer. Vs zerg, they're a joke because of how fast zerg units move on creep and how effective queens/spines/roaches are vs zealots. The best fix IMO for the zealot is not speed (their slowness makes them unique). Not hp (units with too much hp are boring in RTS games because they reduce the importance of front-loaded damage/positioning). But attack...maybe slight...at just one more point of damage...but I think it could be enough. Then to balance against late game chargelots (which are OP), the base movement speed bonus should be removed and the charge cool-down perhaps doubled (making this more of a strategic/manual ability). This will help so terran...so in turn, slow has to (and should) be removed from the game (if not the marauder itself which overlaps too much with factory tech).
You can't discuss protoss changes too much without discussing core zerg concepts. Zerg play as is now, is broken vs protoss. It is not right that zerg can/should/do getaway with three fast bases so fast in the game. This puts protoss position to do all-or-nothing timing attacks...our alternatives are to be overrun by a superior economy. Zerg needs to be designed so you should be harvesting more gas before you get your third. You should be building more macro-hatches and less expansion hatches. You should as zerg actually have to build static defense vs protoss/terran. To that end, I would love to see the speed of inject larvae nerfed, creep movement speed bonus nerfed, while macro-hatch build times (on creep) buffed. Perhaps even a special type of static defense structure that is very gas dependent (like high templar) to encourage zerg to mine gas earlier and more often).
Well if it makes anyone feel better i just did a race distribution search on sc2 ranks and zerg's in GM have a big 38% (436) to be exact, while toss has a 33.8% (388) and terran's in last place with a measly 26.7% (306). The point of this is that there's more zerg's and toss at a steady 35% overall from bronze to GM and Terran holding out at 25% overall. So if blizzard wants to balance something they need to balance that more than anything. That's just down right sad .
On October 21 2012 23:17 Fungal Growth wrote: Respectfully disagree with the original poster.
First on protoss two base timing attacks being too powerful vs zerg...we don't have any other option. One base attacks don't work because queens and spines are too powerful and too easy to make. Macro games don't work because inject larvae and zerg creep scales exponentially. For all the talk of mothership countering zerg...in reality there are very few perfect archon toilets in actual late-game PvZ. Zerg definitely has the advantage vs late game protoss.
On forcefield being too strong... The issue should never really be on strengths since that can be infinitely rebalanced by weakening/strengthening other units, but rather on how fun it is. Forcefield is fun and should stay. The problem with protoss two base timing attacks, is not forcefield (which is a little overrated as each sentry costs 100 gas which really hurts colossi/upgrades/air/twi-light tech). But rather the warp-gate mechanic and the colossi. Rally distance provides a significant advantage to the defender and when you remove that, you can win based on very slight unit advantages. I myself like the idea that warpgate be a 'local spell' only to start with, and then only becomes a 'remote' spell after a significant upgrade.
Colossi are too one-dimensional. By being so fast and having such good range they can determine a battle from afar. They either dominate a battle without AA, or are dominated from AA. It's too simplistic and this unit should be removed from the game and replaced with a proper siege units that is not vulnerable to AA, but has a proper weakness and is very slow (like the reaver ).
If colossi/WP were addressed, then protoss could be properly buffed. The stalkers should not be buffed...yes they are cost ineffective, but if buffed nobody would build any other unit and we would have stalker deathballs. The zealot is the main reason early games protoss has so many problems with zerg/terran. Vs terran they are kited by marine/marauder in perpetuity. The zealot is ultimately a hp tank for stalkers now, or a building destroyer. Vs zerg, they're a joke because of how fast zerg units move on creep and how effective queens/spines/roaches are vs zealots. The best fix IMO for the zealot is not speed (their slowness makes them unique). Not hp (units with too much hp are boring in RTS games because they reduce the importance of front-loaded damage/positioning). But attack...maybe slight...at just one more point of damage...but I think it could be enough. Then to balance against late game chargelots (which are OP), the base movement speed bonus should be removed and the charge cool-down perhaps doubled (making this more of a strategic/manual ability). This will help so terran...so in turn, slow has to (and should) be removed from the game (if not the marauder itself which overlaps too much with factory tech).
You can't discuss protoss changes too much without discussing core zerg concepts. Zerg play as is now, is broken vs protoss. It is not right that zerg can/should/do getaway with three fast bases so fast in the game. This puts protoss position to do all-or-nothing timing attacks...our alternatives are to be overrun by a superior economy. Zerg needs to be designed so you should be harvesting more gas before you get your third. You should be building more macro-hatches and less expansion hatches. You should as zerg actually have to build static defense vs protoss/terran. To that end, I would love to see the speed of inject larvae nerfed, creep movement speed bonus nerfed, while macro-hatch build times (on creep) buffed. Perhaps even a special type of static defense structure that is very gas dependent (like high templar) to encourage zerg to mine gas earlier and more often).
Just because Protoss doesn't have anything other then 2 and 3 base (pre hive/pre BL) timings doesn't mean the race shouldn't be reworked, in fact that is the very reason why the race should be re-worked. Because it is forced into such a shitty and one dimensional role, and because games often wind up as 10-15 minute no attack macro fests.
I also disagree about sentries, FF is not fun at all, and it is fundamentally broken as a mechanic. It doesn't matter if its fun, its way too hard to balance and it is one of the main reasons why GW armies have been nerfed and pigeon holed into oblivion.
You say the mechanic is fun, well what is fun about a fire and forget spell? A spell that once cast your role in the fight ends. Fact of the matter is, FF can block off certain areas of the map for a brief period of time with just a few clicks and there is nothing you can do about it if you're on the opposing end.
FF limits micro, once cast there is very little you can do. And don't talk about pre-splitting, baiting and other stupidities like that. You can do pre-splitting, and baiting against storms as well, you can probably do it against blinding cloud, but you also have the added benefit of being able to split and move out of those even after they are cast. FF removes that possibility.
And too add insult to injury, FF limits the size and build of maps, maps need to have bases be slightly compact together with the 3rd not too far from the nat and main, otherwise Protoss becomes useless, they can't reliably take a 3rd if its not possible to forcefield and control the space. You also can't make the map too open, if the map is too open then it becomes open to abuse from zerg against all races, but especially against Protoss, who critically rely on FF for the majority of the early and mid game to survive, not even the feared Immortal, Sentry push would be of much use if the maps where so open that you didn't have a proper choke in which to cuddle and FF around. Lastly you also can't have the map too full of chokes, otherwise zerg will whine and bitch till tomorrow because of FFs everywhere preventing them from doing anything (this is partially also due to the design of zerg, but it deserves a entire topic of its own).
FF is part of the reason why 2 base timings are so good. As others have so finely pointed out, notice how 90% of the timings use sentries, no sentries no timing. Also notice how, on certain maps in the past, if they where built in a certain way, either too closed or too open, protoss would either be too strong or too weak vs zerg on that map. Yes WG is a huge culprit here, but so is FF.
For the better of the game, this stupidity, this abomination of what you call a "fun spell" needs to be removed or re-worked into something else, preferably something that can encourage micro for both sides, before and after the spell is cast. And while we are at it, the WG could use a re-work as well, a hefty one at that.
My favorite idea would be to have standard GWs produce units at a faster rate, then WG, and WG produces units a bit slower and it also takes more time to warp in, proportional to how far the warping in happens from the WG. That way PvP gets a partial fix because they receive proper defenders advantage. Protoss get a new sort of macro mechanic to play with and raise their skill cap, to see how efficient they can be at judging the situation and changing GWs to WGs and vice verse. And lastly GW units can be buffed and become much more useful, you could have better posturing and pressuring by Toss, you could have small move outs of units, just like you see small 8 marine attacks from time to time, and all that without worry from the toss of losing his army.
However how to buff GW units, and possibly how to adjust zerg and terrans in response, how the new balance of power relationships will work merits a whole new thread with lots of feedback, brainstorming and testing of its own.
If you remove forcefields...where does that leave charge-less zealots?
Plus without forcefields, how does protoss hold off 4gate? Roach/ling/baneling all ins? Three rax? We as protoss are toast without FF.
I'm not sold on two-base sentry timing attacks being the problem. I actually believe this might still be worked out in the metagame. For example, a number of times when protoss two-base/sentry attacks a zerg, the zerg is on three base, has built few military units, few if any spines, lots and lots of drones, built lots of overlords and invested in a lot of upgrades. That's not being honest....that's drone cheese and we as protoss have to have a way to punish this or zerg just dominate this matchup. If zergs build more macro-hatches, more spines, less upgrades and more military units they can fend off these attacks. Especially with spine placement guarding the chokes from forcefields (spines > sentries).
A sentry attack is really nothing without warp-in. Again, sentries are super expensive at 100 gas, so if you have a lot of them, then the rest of your army will be VERY weak. To overcome this and to make the timing attack work, protoss needs to be able to warp in reinforcements immediately.
An analogy to put warpgate in perspective. Imagine if two players spawn right next to each other but were separated by an impenetrable wall. One player had with an upgrade researched the ability to walk through this wall from their base, so the wall turned into a one-way gate. Problematic? Of Course...once the research could be done, the defender would constantly have to have the same # of defending units or more cost effective units to protect himself. That or the defender gambles that the opposition won't attack and plays for the late-game in which he knows his superiorly balanced units would prevail. Warpgate (at least remove warp-ins) are broken and are the reason protoss is so messed up. It's not forcefields. If warrpgate is removed or localized or made a late game upgrade...then protoss should NOT be buffed to compensate. Rather the other races (which were buffed indirectly to hold of warpgate attacks) should be properly nerfed.
Don't fool yourself, FF is equally a culprit in all this problem as is WG. And again it doesn't matter how shitty Toss would be right now if you removed FF, the spell needs to be removed, its just too limiting, not only in regards to gameplay, but also map making and even the design of other units. And as I said already, if you remove and you have to remove FF and nerf WG, you also need to re-work and maybe just flat out buff GW unit for them to be competitive.
I haven't touched on how exactly to re-work GW units yet, because I myself have no idea yet how it should be done properly, it will obviously cause ripples and have wide spread implications in all MUs and could change the entire dynamic of the race. But believe me, it has to be done at some point, protoss and all MUs involving it, + all the maps are way too limited by FFs, its already becoming more of a hindrance and annoyance then a cool fun thing.
Some ways to test how to rebalanced GW units in the absence of FF and WG would be to create a custom map and tweak some of their stats, make stalkers more cost effective, maybe make zealots more damage or more tanky, or give them a very short duration, low CD to make them more tanky but also more skill based.
There are ways to make it work, its just not immediately apparent right now and it requires some testing and brain storming.
Small buffs to zealot and stalker run afoul of the large early attacks, primarily the 4gate. Anything making up for units being able to kite away from a gateway ball (Roach/MM/Gateway) buffs a zealot/stalker 4gate on any fast expands. That's a pretty hard limiting case, and another design challenge beyond just changing FF for a slow, buffing zealot/stalker health/damage and calling it a day.
Secondly, PvP will have to change drastically. I don't mind the shape it is in right now, and where we saw blizzard taking it with the mothership core (defend a meaty expansion build). FF on ramps shapes every PvP opening. If you aren't the strongest build out of the gates, you get a sentry and gain security. If you are, you skip the sentry and gain pressure. There are tradeoffs in between. So what you're suggesting also involves a huge balance fight over the strength of aggressive openings in PvP.
Both can be balanced through, but it will take time. Quite a few weeks of beta try-and-fail if I would hazard a guess, just to get data on the emerging troubles.
Yes, I am aware of this, when changing the design of the game it will inevitably affect balance, and doing such sweeping changes to WG mechanics and FF would affect the core of Toss and and any match-ups it is involved in. However here are a couple of little bits of logic that I was able to deduct, that would possibly help regarding this issue.
If FF is removed and WG changed to be slower in general then GW and proportionally worst the longer the distance from WG to target warp location, then any attack would have a more limited window in which it could do damage, and this becomes applicable in all MUs.
This would be because of a couple of reasons. Firstly if you want to sustain an WG attack to the same level as in the past you would need more WGs, and this would be proportional to the distance you are attacking over, this would logically require a certain number invested into the infrastructure to make the attack successful, increasing the time until an attack can hit and also potentially making it easier to scout/giving you a bigger window of time to react to the attack.
Secondly, you could still chrono WGs for added benefits, but long term this wouldn't be sustainable, and it would sap your economy.
So, committing for too long to a WG attack would need to be better thought out because if it fails you risk falling behind on economy since you are pouring additional resources into an attack.
Now, lets get into the nitty gritty of the attacks themselves. In PvP, I agree it would be the MU that would change the most, but it might be for the better. The attacking player would always need to invest more resources into WGs then the defending player, so he would need to do damage to stay relevant. The defending player could use his terrain advantage + his additional resources and chrono for either better tech to hold the attack, (robo), or more GWs of his own, so that his localized closer and faster production from the GWs can hold off the attack.
I'm going to go a bit farther and theorize a bit on GW vs WG. Lets say both players have the same income and lets say the attacker has managed to setup his infrastructure to attack. To setup his attack using the new WGs it will take slightly longer due to more resources involved in building said infrastructure, that buys the defender some additional time. When the battle itself starts, the defender should have a smoother reinforcement stream. His GWs are producing units/reinforcements at a faster smoother rate, they come out at small equal intervals, the attacker has WGs, they have longer production cycle and distance factor, while he might have the resources to warp in immediately, he might not be able to either because of the CD being longer. Or the longer CD makes it that instead of warping in 4 stalkers in say every 30 seconds, he needs to warp in 5 stalkers but only ever 40 or 45 seconds. Its those couple of seconds difference in reinforcement rates that should help the defender hold an attack.
In TvP, if FFs don't exist any more there is nothing to stop SCVs from repairing short of killing them, knowing this you could build supply depos between bunkers to create a wall (similar to how its done in TvZ), thus zealots can't get surface area on the bunkers, can't stop the SCVs from repairing, and it forces stalkers to move closer to the bunkers and risk taking damage/dying. Terrans should in theory be better of then zergs against new GW units from protoss, and conc shells instead of being a luxury used to punish toss for being on the map outside of a choke, could become a necessity for bio just so it can escape.
TvZ, this is where it could get a bit more complicated. Seeing as 4 gate might be more common, zergs will need to use their superior scouting from overlords to spot for signs of an incoming attack or just plain teching/eco play from the zerg. If they spot the attack or signs of an attack they respond and prepare how they have since now, cut drone production and switch quickly into lings and roaches. If however, the buffed GW units are too strong more drastic measures might be needed. One idea I've entertained would be to make Hydras hatch tech, make their speed upgrade lair take (along with range), and possibly move roaches to Lair.
The benefits of this would be Hydra's superior DPS and kiting abilities that allow them to hold some of the earlier pressures much easier. Speed upgrade for hydras at lair tech makes sense, because by that stage the big hitters like storm and colossus haven't come out to dominate the field and make them irrelevant. Slow hydra busts won't be a risk against protoss and terran, Toss should be able to hold because of defender's advantage + stronger GW units, while terran could hold using their sim cities, terrain, siege tanks etc.
I know it sounds good on paper, and I am fully aware that it actually needs a lot of back and forth testing and tweaking to numbers before we actually get it right, but the concept seems much, much better then the current WGs we have, or the scenarios FFs force out. I'm also aware that, the other suggestion I made, move Hydras to hatch and roach to Lair comes with its own set of consequences, but I'm too tired and its too late for me to explore those at this time, I might continue this discussion tomorrow.
However again, I believe removing FFs and tweaking WGs, while undoubtedly will change things up massively, I don't believe it will be as extreme as some people make it out to be, or that it would impact the MU's negatively, of course there will be consequences that need to be addressed, and re-balances that need to be made.
Gretorp your thoughts and others are right on and I hope that Blizzard picks up on this immediately. The power behind spellcasters has caused the current stagnation in the game. Keep up the good analysis and casting Gretorp!
Forcefields and warpgate just never felt right. Essentially you're giving Protoss the arbiter's recall and stasis block (both very late game abilties) right from the early game.
a good designed MsC that works well defensively is a nice stepping stone to remove the needed early game FF without buffing zealot and stalker (so chargelot/blinkstalker doesnt become OP). then give the sentry another guardian shield/shield battery/whatever non-micro-preventing midgame spell and there you go, FF is removed without having to change a lot.
then make warp-ins only available at WARP-prisms and not pylons and make warp-prism warp in range small enough so you cant warp in 20 zealots/stalker with one warp-prism but still big enough so you can harrass with it. make warpgate research have the effect that gateways produce faster (+ the old "make it into warpgates"). that way early game proxy gates etc. wont become OP but mid- and lategame gateways produce faster. defenders advantage finally available vs P (which includes a much better, less coinflippy PvP mirror MU).
On October 21 2012 06:12 anon734912 wrote: Oh and, Blizzard Activision is literalling SWIMMING in all their money. They have so much more that they could give than Riot/Valve, it's not actually funny.
On October 21 2012 06:12 anon734912 wrote: Oh and, Blizzard Activision is literalling SWIMMING in all their money. They have so much more that they could give than Riot/Valve, it's not actually funny.
Finally someone expresses coherently why Protoss (and many other aspects of SC2) is poorly designed.
I REALLY hope Blizzard takes a step back from trying to make money and delays HOTS to redesign the game as a whole. It is crucial and necessary as so beautifully outlined in this post. Protoss is terribly designed, with key spells being too crucial. Zerg works the same way with fungal being at the core of every match up because otherwise Zerg wouldn't win. I think terran is great with ghosts and ravens not overpowered when massed. It's the way casters are supposed to be, but now the game is entirely designed around casters. Also, hero units are a ridiculous concept and do not belong in SC2. No single unit should have the power, with one spell, to change an entire game.
Change (as in nerf) the infestor, the sentry and remove the mothership, then rebalance the game.
You got some great points here. I especially like the way you talk about Force Field acting as a slow (I do not however consider Guardian Shield to be broken, it's a good and fair spell).
Ravens with EMP - as it should be! Ghosts with Widow Mines? Great, sounds like their field of expertise.
Fungal acting like Ensnare... Slow movement speed and attack speed rathen then dotting... It could work.
Adding more micro early on, yes please do. Brood War had so much micro, it was extremely fun to watch those intense micro battles.
Remove Vortex, or Mother Ship for that matter, reinstate the Arbiter! I would like to see more battles evolve around speed (like recall, you can teleport just about anywhere which gives you fast paced battles). The Vortex is just silly, willy nilly.
I don't completely hate FF, but I agree overall it has been a bigger detriment to the game than addition. Despite this though, the fact of the matter is FF is not leaving the game. It is too intertwined with Protoss and if it were to be removed the zealot, stalker and WG would all have to be completely reworked, and blizzard isn't going to do that.
They could introduce nerfs though to the sentry and infestor as I agree that there roles are too large in the game. FF could have a cooldown in addition to costing energy so that the ability isn't too spammable. With the infestor make a nerf to either fungal or infested terran to make it so infestors don't dominate air and make up for it by buffing the hydra.
Ya know...I'm pretty much disliking HotS. I really dislike widow mines, really dislike the general flow of protoss units and how you can use them around the map. Its not just forcefields, but that plays a part in it. I think I really prefer SC before BW anyway...when the game was more free flowing and less positional. Although strangely I love to play BW terran.
On October 23 2012 07:58 Eliezar wrote: Ya know...I'm pretty much disliking HotS. I really dislike widow mines, really dislike the general flow of protoss units and how you can use them around the map. Its not just forcefields, but that plays a part in it. I think I really prefer SC before BW anyway...when the game was more free flowing and less positional. Although strangely I love to play BW terran.
On October 23 2012 07:58 Eliezar wrote: Ya know...I'm pretty much disliking HotS. I really dislike widow mines, really dislike the general flow of protoss units and how you can use them around the map. Its not just forcefields, but that plays a part in it. I think I really prefer SC before BW anyway...when the game was more free flowing and less positional. Although strangely I love to play BW terran.
Well that's why I like the new HotS units, because it is making it more positional and that will make the game less deathball focused.
The flaws are mostly with WoL, and hopefully blizzard will be willing to make some bold changes to those units
Sc2 is just not a fun game to play for a casual player. I quit ladder long time ago. But I kept on watching pro player streams and tournaments. But those became boring and stale. I was hoping Hots would change that but currently it does not. The changes are just not enough or boring. BW brought Medics, Valkirys, Lurkers, Devouvers, DTs and Dark Archons and Corsairs.
I'm praying they do SOMETHING to force fields. Obviously some players like it but its probably the most frustrating thing I've ever had to deal with. I can never attack into a protoss' main without a medivac, and they are free to FF my bunkers or even immortal bust about anything i set up. Let me use tanks and blow up every sentry that dares stray near me =[
Would absolutely *adore* to see the changes suggested by gretorp in the last section. Even if it weren't right straight off the bat, it would just be such a much better place to start balancing from.
Forcefields are so awful to watch, and as a noob they're difficult to use, making playing against zerg such a chore for me.
I also think some better core strength in the gateway units would give the designers more freedom to adjust the collosus to make a more interesting unit.
On October 18 2012 09:24 Gretorp wrote: 1. EMP has to be altered, forcefield needs to be altered, guardian shield needs to be nerfed @BlizzardCS @Starcraft #SaveHOTS
2. Remove the mothership and all Hero like units in the game. Vortex has to go, fungal has to change @BlizzardCS @Starcraft #SaveHOTS !!
3. There needs to be more micro units at early mid level tech (dragoon, vulture, LURKER(instead of SH) @BlizzardCS @Starcraft #SaveHOTS
I would love SC2 to be micro intense in the early game. The more you get into the late game the macro kicks in without totally negating micro skills.
I don't like Hero units, even though this concept supports the micro aspect. There should be a counter in terms of unit micro or anti spell, to all offensive spells. The victim should have a chance reduce the effect from an offensive spell by some degree.
Hmm, I wonder if instead of an impassible wall force field would work as an "area of slow" (75%-90% slow or something). That might be reasonably cool but it might overlap slightly in function with fungals, which is not so cool
On October 25 2012 00:54 maximizer wrote: Good list of frustrating/broken things but I feel like one thing thats missing and should be mentioned are warpgates in PvT lategame.
You mean warpgates in PvAll endgame? And larva injects?
On October 25 2012 00:54 maximizer wrote: Good list of frustrating/broken things but I feel like one thing thats missing and should be mentioned are warpgates in PvT lategame.
You mean warpgates in PvAll endgame? And larva injects?
Great post. I do think you bring up an important potential flaw in the 'support' unit concept. Support units seem to be taking their roles one step further and actually deciding games alone, even against higher tier unit compositions. A good example of this was Season 3 GSL finals Squirtle vs MVP, I believe round 5. MVP had a pretty solid late game army consisting of something like over 20 3/3 battlecruisers and ghosts. He was beat out by a mothership and several high templar, when the mothership managed to vortex more than half the battlecruisers and the high templar threw down storms and feedbacks shortly after. While it can be argued that there were also archons (Only about three) and some void rays that entered half way into the fight, the battle was ultimately decided by purely the support units destroying the upper tier terran army. I love support units but they seem more like 'hero' units than supports. I believe both the gameplay and viewer enjoyment could benefit from a change in the support role, both because games wouldn't be decided simply by a few spell animations.
There need to be really strong things, things that are hard to counter. Else the weaker player won't have enough trouble dealing with the stronger player. Forcefields are a skill to master, same goes for EMP and just watch Scarlett place the most perfect fungals, not everybody can do that.
These are game changing spells that determine the outcome of a game, but keep in mind that a game needs an outcome, especially in a competitive setting. At one point a player must be able to pull a trick out of his sleeve and beat the other player. However cheesy it may seem. There is a balance between races and a balance in the game. You talk about support and carry like in a MOBA, that is in my opinion a silly comparison.
A carry is nothing without it's support when the game is properly balanced. So the support is a carry on itself, it carries the "carry". The reason carries are valued more is because of the visual credits they get.
If what you are saying is true, how come we do not have an obvious stronger race? The truth is that the game is balanced on things outside the game as well, also known as the meta.
The original post is nice, but in design aspect it only shows strengths of races and maybe some weird moments. The archon toilet might be extremely powerful, but a mothership doesn't do much when it is emp-ed and it might even hurt when neural parasite comes into play.
I think most players that complain about balance, must have a lot of time on their hands, because I want games to end at some point and not last forever.. Which perfect balance would lead to in the end. So keep that in mind when you talk about balance.
Just saying..in a few words, not going to write my entire reasoning.
One more reason that p units are not as good as the other races is becuase of 4 gate when you get more then twice the army-value of your opponent, if zelot stalker is cost effective without sentry then warpgate must be gone. Warpgate and forcefield are "both stay or both go".
Suggestion: Stalker +4 damage but no bonus vs armoured, warpgate removed from the game, forcefields are destructable with maybe 200 hp.
Why, zealots are already pretty strong. And it is stalkers that gets most from the forcefields. Stalkers need to be a bit more costeffective vs mutas lings and marines if this is to work. Zealots just gets kited. Blink pushes might be strong, but they will be with 2 less warpin cycles so this is probably the best way to buff protoss.
The problem with suggesting changes is that it is fundamentally impossible to know those changes would be fair/balanced or that it wouldn't eventually lead to the same situation we have now in the metagame One thing everyone agrees on though is that deathball isn't good for the game - or the terrible terrible damage design philosophy What worries me is that blizzard seem to know this and making moves to fix it but at the same time seem to attached to their initial design so we wait and hope that legacy of void finally moves far enough away from the deathball design
Regarding your opinion on casting units, I thought that's what people loved about broodwar, how it was balanced on all races having overpowered stuff. Reavers, Strong Tanks, Defilers, ect.
On October 26 2012 22:58 GoodSirTets wrote: Regarding your opinion on casting units, I thought that's what people loved about broodwar, how it was balanced on all races having overpowered stuff. Reavers, Strong Tanks, Defilers, ect.
Reavers, Strong Tanks and Defilers weren't overpowered because it takes good micro/positioning/map awareness to be effective. They are completely different from stuff like Colossi where you just A move and can still deal good damage.
I would love a reworked matchmaking system for BW. I find it hard to find people that are as horrible as I am to play with, and would love to play more BW.
[On October 18 2012 09:24 Gretorp wrote: It's so frustrating seeing game after game after game of 9:30 pushes with 3 immortals and warp prisms working time after time. In these battles, we marvel when squirtle does some awesome warp prism micro and it works so well! But isn't that what we should expect? Isn't this what we want to push our progamers to actually master?
Rather we watch progamers focusing of forcefielding, which let's be honest, it's how fast you can accurately left click. Don't get me wrong, that's a skill and it's hard to do sometimes, but that's very different than drop micro or even regular battle micro.
I completely understand the frustration expressed in the post. However, the quoted section seems to clash with another issue that people have been talking about. One of the reasons that SC2 isn't attracting as many players as other games is because of how difficult it can be to play and/or master. Drop micro, while it looks amazing, is something that the average starcraft player either has huge difficulty doing or just can't do at all. It seems that forcefield was designed to accomodate for those players that weren't used to that kind of intense micro. I've talked to plenty of people who just don't feel like playing starcraft because of ladder anxiety and because of the skill it takes to play the game. In my view, there are two polar opposites. On one side, there are people who want to keep starcraft a game that takes great skill to play; they don't want the game to be so easy that it feels like they're not doing much of anything. On the other side, there are people who are just turned off by the steep learning curve and level of skill needed to play SC2. Does anyone else share the same view? disagree?
well there should be ways of combining the two, make a casual ladder version with simplified mechanics ( perhaps worker production is automized) where players can focus more on army etc and less on mechanics, that would keep a lot of my friends who are casual-gamers to play sc2.
I especially like the points you make about forcefields. For a long time I really despised gateway units, but they had to be weak. The reason for that is the forcefield,BUT it is also the warp mechanic, instant reinforcements even when attacking will force units to be weaker.
I think both the warp gate and the FF may need some changes. The other post suggests warp gates to incur a penalty to production time ( longer cooldown based on unit production time). This would force a trade off between building armies quickly and reinforcing instantly.
The other point worth noting is that the current HotS oracle is almost able to replace the sentry by itself due to timewarp and higher speed.
I also feel the need to give all maps small ramps just to keep protoss from dying early game is really just stupid.
Let's just get rid of FF and use timewarp instead maybe. Make the sentry a true support unit with hallucinations, a slightly stronger attack and maybe a guardian shield that does not block damage but instead blocks emp and fungal!
Also I like the idea of giving ghosts widow mines, that sounds pretty cool. Raven EMP is nice but would be too similar to science vessel IMO. Maybe change the EMP mechanic somehow.
Anyway good post. Let's see where blizzard goes from here.
Oh yeah and get rid of a the mothership. It was a stupid idea in the firstplace. We don't need hero units. If we want heroes we wait for WC4 or play LoL.
Thanks for sharing Gretorp. I hope that Blizzard not only listens but also actively communicates with you, as I believe this will improve SC2 and make games even more exciting and enjoyable to watch.
I also hope that Blizzard makes the game more attractive for casual players, (as destiny suggested). I would like to see the game become even more popular and successful.
Finally I remember when I first watched NASL and your casting. I got the impression that you were over confident and too quick to criticize. After watching you cast many games and play a few my opinion has totally changed. You are clearly a world class analyst well deserving of both my deepest respect and admiration.
I don't know. A lot of the things Gretorp says make sense but there are so many cons. First look back at bw. Remember how many imba spells and mechanics were there? Dark swarm, stronger psionic storm, irradiate, huge area emp, stronger tanks, cracklings, free mines, carrier micro, stacked mutas. And somehow the game didn't fall apart. Such things make the game more exciting. If you nerf spells too much nobody will use those besides progamers, games will be even more a-move than they are now. And that will push the scene into a huge decline so that only hardcore fans will stay and even they will just mostly watch instead of actually playing the game.
The problem with WoL is, there are only a few imba mechanics and they force the game flow :
-MMM healing + stim
-infestors/fungal
-forcefield
There is not really a good alternative to these options in most games. I really think you could safely remove FF with TW now in the game to its place. Also removing Mothership and toss reliance on vortex will likely force more dynamic development. And finally make fungal deal no damage, instead let it prevent all abilities and root for a longer time - thus it is more supportive and a counter to casters. For terran add something to make mech equally attractive as mmm play
On October 28 2012 09:25 Cheerio wrote: I don't know. A lot of the things Gretorp says make sense but there are so many cons. First look back at bw. Remember how many imba spells and mechanics were there? Dark swarm, stronger psionic storm, irradiate, huge area emp, stronger tanks, cracklings, free mines, carrier micro, stacked mutas. And somehow the game didn't fall apart. Such things make the game more exciting. If you nerf spells too much nobody will use those besides progamers, games will be even more a-move than they are now. And that will push the scene into a huge decline so that only hardcore fans will stay and even they will just mostly watch instead of actually playing the game.
actually, tanks werent stronger, in fact tanks do more dps unsieged in sc2. they were more dominating in bw, but not stronger.
The huge difference is that with the mechanics of sc2, its easier to control all the insanely good spells, and those are the ones that build up the super-passive midgame in the different matchups (look at zvt for example and what infestors are doing to it)
On October 28 2012 09:25 Cheerio wrote: I don't know. A lot of the things Gretorp says make sense but there are so many cons. First look back at bw. Remember how many imba spells and mechanics were there? Dark swarm, stronger psionic storm, irradiate, huge area emp, stronger tanks, cracklings, free mines, carrier micro, stacked mutas. And somehow the game didn't fall apart. Such things make the game more exciting. If you nerf spells too much nobody will use those besides progamers, games will be even more a-move than they are now. And that will push the scene into a huge decline so that only hardcore fans will stay and even they will just mostly watch instead of actually playing the game.
actually, tanks werent stronger, in fact tanks do more dps unsieged in sc2. they were more dominating in bw, but not stronger.
The huge difference is that with the mechanics of sc2, its easier to control all the insanely good spells, and those are the ones that build up the super-passive midgame in the different matchups (look at zvt for example and what infestors are doing to it)
Sieged Tank in SCBW: 24.2~ DPS (result of the siege damage divided by the siege cooldown of 75 divided by the cooldown of the game speed of 26) Sieged Tank in SC2: 11.7 DPS (taken from page)
On October 28 2012 09:25 Cheerio wrote: I don't know. A lot of the things Gretorp says make sense but there are so many cons. First look back at bw. Remember how many imba spells and mechanics were there? Dark swarm, stronger psionic storm, irradiate, huge area emp, stronger tanks, cracklings, free mines, carrier micro, stacked mutas. And somehow the game didn't fall apart. Such things make the game more exciting. If you nerf spells too much nobody will use those besides progamers, games will be even more a-move than they are now. And that will push the scene into a huge decline so that only hardcore fans will stay and even they will just mostly watch instead of actually playing the game.
actually, tanks werent stronger, in fact tanks do more dps unsieged in sc2. they were more dominating in bw, but not stronger.
The huge difference is that with the mechanics of sc2, its easier to control all the insanely good spells, and those are the ones that build up the super-passive midgame in the different matchups (look at zvt for example and what infestors are doing to it)
Sieged Tank in SCBW: 24.2~ DPS (result of the siege damage divided by the siege cooldown of 75 divided by the cooldown of the game speed of 26) Sieged Tank in SC2: 11.7 DPS (taken from page)
yes i also think that in siege mode the bw tank was better, but in unsieged mode the sc2 one is much better. Also in bw most units like tanks and dragoons had a delay after killing a unit, to "aim" for a new one, also the tank had a much slower turret turning speed in bw than in sc2.
On October 28 2012 09:25 Cheerio wrote: I don't know. A lot of the things Gretorp says make sense but there are so many cons. First look back at bw. Remember how many imba spells and mechanics were there? Dark swarm, stronger psionic storm, irradiate, huge area emp, stronger tanks, cracklings, free mines, carrier micro, stacked mutas. And somehow the game didn't fall apart. Such things make the game more exciting. If you nerf spells too much nobody will use those besides progamers, games will be even more a-move than they are now. And that will push the scene into a huge decline so that only hardcore fans will stay and even they will just mostly watch instead of actually playing the game.
actually, tanks werent stronger, in fact tanks do more dps unsieged in sc2. they were more dominating in bw, but not stronger.
The huge difference is that with the mechanics of sc2, its easier to control all the insanely good spells, and those are the ones that build up the super-passive midgame in the different matchups (look at zvt for example and what infestors are doing to it)
Sieged Tank in SCBW: 24.2~ DPS (result of the siege damage divided by the siege cooldown of 75 divided by the cooldown of the game speed of 26) Sieged Tank in SC2: 11.7 DPS (taken from page)
yes i also think that in siege mode the bw tank was better, but in unsieged mode the sc2 one is much better. Also in bw most units like tanks and dragoons had a delay after killing a unit, to "aim" for a new one, also the tank had a much slower turret turning speed in bw than in sc2.
Tanks were better in BW because Shields took full damage.
On October 29 2012 00:50 Freeborn wrote: The problem with WoL is, there are only a few imba mechanics and they force the game flow :
-MMM healing + stim
-infestors/fungal
-forcefield
There is not really a good alternative to these options in most games. I really think you could safely remove FF with TW now in the game to its place. Also removing Mothership and toss reliance on vortex will likely force more dynamic development. And finally make fungal deal no damage, instead let it prevent all abilities and root for a longer time - thus it is more supportive and a counter to casters. For terran add something to make mech equally attractive as mmm play
Add Warpgate, Larva Inject, Mules, Marauders, Roaches, Immortals, and Colossus.
You post in the HotS forum, and add #savehots, but everything you talk about is WoL. Are you seriously suggesting they change the entire game and throw away 10 years of development and 2 years of patching to get us to where we are now? WoL is in a good, balanced place right now. I'm not disagreeing with some of the things you say, but Blizzard cannot and will not want to change WoL too drastically.
On October 28 2012 09:25 Cheerio wrote: I don't know. A lot of the things Gretorp says make sense but there are so many cons. First look back at bw. Remember how many imba spells and mechanics were there? Dark swarm, stronger psionic storm, irradiate, huge area emp, stronger tanks, cracklings, free mines, carrier micro, stacked mutas. And somehow the game didn't fall apart. Such things make the game more exciting. If you nerf spells too much nobody will use those besides progamers, games will be even more a-move than they are now. And that will push the scene into a huge decline so that only hardcore fans will stay and even they will just mostly watch instead of actually playing the game.
actually, tanks werent stronger, in fact tanks do more dps unsieged in sc2. they were more dominating in bw, but not stronger.
The huge difference is that with the mechanics of sc2, its easier to control all the insanely good spells, and those are the ones that build up the super-passive midgame in the different matchups (look at zvt for example and what infestors are doing to it)
Sieged Tank in SCBW: 24.2~ DPS (result of the siege damage divided by the siege cooldown of 75 divided by the cooldown of the game speed of 26) Sieged Tank in SC2: 11.7 DPS (taken from page)
yes i also think that in siege mode the bw tank was better, but in unsieged mode the sc2 one is much better. Also in bw most units like tanks and dragoons had a delay after killing a unit, to "aim" for a new one, also the tank had a much slower turret turning speed in bw than in sc2.
Tanks were better in BW because Shields took full damage.
dont forget that tanks only did 70 explosive damage in siege mode, which means half the damage to small units e.g marines zealots lings etc.
I haven't read every post of this thread, and I'm pretty sure someone mentioned this in the 20 pages of posts...but just in case...
So... gretorp sees a problem with EMP but not storm??? I'm not saying EMP doesn't have its problems (sucks to have better position/army/army comp be smashed by EMPs), but Storm has all of EMPs problems and then some...
Storm is effective in all matchups, EMP only works vs energy units... Also 2 ghosts can't fire EMP then transform into a thor...
I don't understand people's beef with forcefield. Making a statement like "forcefield isn't micro it's just how fast you can accurately left click" is stupid. That statement implies that where and when to use your forcefields is already determined without any thought. Forcefield is a bit like cloak. You have to scout and prepare for it accordingly. Except forcefield is a much deeper ability. The way it's used depends heavily on the unit composition of both players, the terrain of the map, and other factors as well. Oh yeah and it's much more difficult to use as well. Does that make cloak a stupid and boring ability?
On November 06 2012 04:36 alexanderzero wrote: I don't understand people's beef with forcefield. Making a statement like "forcefield isn't micro it's just how fast you can accurately left click" is stupid. That statement implies that where and when to use your forcefields is already determined without any thought. Forcefield is a bit like cloak. You have to scout and prepare for it accordingly. Except forcefield is a much deeper ability. The way it's used depends heavily on the unit composition of both players, the terrain of the map, and other factors as well. Oh yeah and it's much more difficult to use as well. Does that make cloak a stupid and boring ability?
While I agree that FF isn't a bad spell, I disagree on the point about Cloak.
Cloak isn't a micro-able ability. The opponent can Fungal/Storm/EMP cloaked units, but the user of Cloak doesn't need to micro because of Cloak. For example, Banshee moving shot micro is usable both with and without Cloak.
That said, I hate how some people say that FF is unstoppable with proper micro. It's near impossible to reach the level at which you never miss an FF. If you do reach that level, you damn well deserve to win. Kind of the same deal with Fungal, except admittedly, Fungal is a bit easier to cast. However, as seen in Life vs Flash (the series where Flash 2-0'd Life), Flash dominated Life, even when Life was so far ahead. Fungals didn't matter. Flash mitigated the damage by forcing Life to use inefficient Fungals. I know that Life came back to 4-0 Flash in the semi-finals, but my point still stands.
On November 06 2012 04:36 alexanderzero wrote: I don't understand people's beef with forcefield. Making a statement like "forcefield isn't micro it's just how fast you can accurately left click" is stupid. That statement implies that where and when to use your forcefields is already determined without any thought. Forcefield is a bit like cloak. You have to scout and prepare for it accordingly. Except forcefield is a much deeper ability. The way it's used depends heavily on the unit composition of both players, the terrain of the map, and other factors as well. Oh yeah and it's much more difficult to use as well. Does that make cloak a stupid and boring ability?
While I agree that FF isn't a bad spell, I disagree on the point about Cloak.
Cloak isn't a micro-able ability. The opponent can Fungal/Storm/EMP cloaked units, but the user of Cloak doesn't need to micro because of Cloak. For example, Banshee moving shot micro is usable both with and without Cloak.
That said, I hate how some people say that FF is unstoppable with proper micro. It's near impossible to reach the level at which you never miss an FF. If you do reach that level, you damn well deserve to win. Kind of the same deal with Fungal, except admittedly, Fungal is a bit easier to cast. However, as seen in Life vs Flash (the series where Flash 2-0'd Life), Flash dominated Life, even when Life was so far ahead. Fungals didn't matter. Flash mitigated the damage by forcing Life to use inefficient Fungals. I know that Life came back to 4-0 Flash in the semi-finals, but my point still stands.
Life lost wasnt because Flash dominated him, it was because he derped and lost 12 infestors for free. Flash didnt do anything special that series. Then second time around, Life started playing like himself and 4-0ed Flash in painful manners.
after reading the david kim interview i am very disappointed. no change to fungal, not a word about nerfing/removing FF and vortex. at least they start changing voidray and raven. but also no word about hydras, ultras, ghosts etc..
carrier might get a buff: fungal no longer hits interceptors, so mass carrier + support is completely unbeatable for zerg. hurray. just introduce nonys carrier micro and maybe a slight build time buff and carrier will be fine.
blizzard did shit, then it got a lot better and now they are on the way to being at most mediocre...
With the exception of the PvZ BL/Mothership reliance I disagree with a lot of what was posted here. His post has more to do with low level balance than high level balance.
Has anybody noticed that whether or not fungal/FF/EMP seem OP is based quite often on who's playing and who they're playing against? Sorry, but the whole "I was just sitting there with my army and next thing I know BOOM whole thing gets emp'd out of nowhere!" It didn't get EMP'd out of nowhere, it got EMP'd by ghosts who walked up to your army who you could have detected had you employed proper army positioning/observer placement/mini-map awareness prior to it happening. Terran's get every marine fungal'd when they move brazenly onto creep or again aren't watching. FF becomes insurmountable for Zergs who keep all their units on a single hotkey and attack from one location in bad spots vs Toss because they didn't realize the toss was attacking until their army was at their third. BW was balanced because each race had a number of imbalanced units. So Toss relies heavily on the sentry? What was Terran in the early game of BW w/o the medic? Or Zerg without the lurker? Protoss without the reaver? You think SC2 is hard and feels imbalanced when you suck, try playing Terran BW. But once you're good at T in BW it's arguably the strongest race.
But yeah, the mothership PvZ dynamic is BS. BL/infestor waaaaaaaaaaaay too good, and toss needs a way of dealing with it that doesn't involve landing a single spell. (although it's not like either toss gets zergs entire army, or zerg dominates, there's a bit of a spectrum of how well those engagements play out so it's not entirely bad. I just with it wasn't a single spell, but maybe multiple.)
Thanks for your post, I agree on "Remove the mothership and all Hero like units in the game. Vortex has to go, fungal has to change" and like your solution making FG slowing instead of snare
vor PvZ lategame I'd love to see stasis field instead ov vortex
On November 06 2012 04:36 alexanderzero wrote: I don't understand people's beef with forcefield. Making a statement like "forcefield isn't micro it's just how fast you can accurately left click" is stupid. That statement implies that where and when to use your forcefields is already determined without any thought. Forcefield is a bit like cloak. You have to scout and prepare for it accordingly. Except forcefield is a much deeper ability. The way it's used depends heavily on the unit composition of both players, the terrain of the map, and other factors as well. Oh yeah and it's much more difficult to use as well. Does that make cloak a stupid and boring ability?
While I agree that FF isn't a bad spell, I disagree on the point about Cloak.
Cloak isn't a micro-able ability. The opponent can Fungal/Storm/EMP cloaked units, but the user of Cloak doesn't need to micro because of Cloak. For example, Banshee moving shot micro is usable both with and without Cloak.
That said, I hate how some people say that FF is unstoppable with proper micro. It's near impossible to reach the level at which you never miss an FF. If you do reach that level, you damn well deserve to win. Kind of the same deal with Fungal, except admittedly, Fungal is a bit easier to cast. However, as seen in Life vs Flash (the series where Flash 2-0'd Life), Flash dominated Life, even when Life was so far ahead. Fungals didn't matter. Flash mitigated the damage by forcing Life to use inefficient Fungals. I know that Life came back to 4-0 Flash in the semi-finals, but my point still stands.
Life lost wasnt because Flash dominated him, it was because he derped and lost 12 infestors for free. Flash didnt do anything special that series. Then second time around, Life started playing like himself and 4-0ed Flash in painful manners.
Yup, life headbutted alllll his infestors into a few stimmed bio units. If you'd actualyl watched the game, life shut down every single attack that flash made because of fungals. He was about to push back flash's bio tank army with his broodlords when he made this one mistake. Starcraft is a game based on who makes the least "minor" errors. If you're saying that terrans have to rely on on major mistakes from the zerg to win, then what does this say about the place of fungal growth in the zerg's army?
On November 06 2012 04:36 alexanderzero wrote: I don't understand people's beef with forcefield. Making a statement like "forcefield isn't micro it's just how fast you can accurately left click" is stupid. That statement implies that where and when to use your forcefields is already determined without any thought. Forcefield is a bit like cloak. You have to scout and prepare for it accordingly. Except forcefield is a much deeper ability. The way it's used depends heavily on the unit composition of both players, the terrain of the map, and other factors as well. Oh yeah and it's much more difficult to use as well. Does that make cloak a stupid and boring ability?
Uh. The issue was never about how fast you could accurately click to cast the spell. The issue was that once casted they`d cut off half your army and there really isn`t much you can do as an attacker except watch that bit of your army die. No spell or unit in broodwar was ever that accessible, unforgiving and cruel at the same time.
honestly these changes are trying to make this into a completely different game.... I agree there are problems but i think three is a reason that 50k+ people tuned into wcs yesterday, because people like watching this game.
Regarding blizzard making money, at least they are putting that cash to good use. Balancing games for 10 years cant be free can it?
I think the real problem in sc2 is that the battles end so extremly fast, maybe it is only because i am plat but most of time after the battle i dont know why i won the battle... Did i have luck because i my unit had a better position, did my "micro" matter or did my opponent a mistake? It feels in wc3 and BW you had more controll over the battle, because you had more time and could see how your opponent moves his units and try to counter his moves.
I cant really point out why it is different in sc2...maybe because the game speed is faster? maybe because you are able to fit so much firepower in a small place (broodlord/infestor and collosi deathballs)?
agree with the OP. I really like simple answers to fix this issue, so one does not break the game.
I think we can do two things.
Queen: Make them massive. So they can break FF for protoss all ins. Because they are slow off creep. The queen would not be viable to abuse the FF crushing tactic. This make make FF a more defensive spell, with a more supporting role. This would force protoss to snipe queens and deny creep spread as a main tactic, like zvt. This will allow banelings to be viable with out Overlord drops, like in zvt.
Furthermore, Creep spreading would actually occur in zvp, forcing protoss to deny creep or be behind. This meta game shift would require micro during the early to mid game build phase, separating good players from great place because of the increase amount of multitasking required.
Infester: Fungle only freeze light units. All other units are slowed. This would allow vikings and Stalkers to more easily snipe BL. Furthermore it would still prevent gasless 3/3 marines winning the game by them selves. The slow would increase micro situations..
Also. The fungle change would make zvz a more positional match up. One can actually kill a player now who is behind, and can not abuse the fungle until they are maxed.
I was always under the impression that the Protoss army has to rely in sentry during the mid game because of the warp in tech. Protoss units are a little underpowered so that a Terran (not sure about zerg) can hold of a four gate without having to totally neglect his economy.
A little after the fourgate timing Protoss gets access to the Sentrie. Now the Protoss has a tier1 army that can survive without having units that can straight-up win early game because of a lack of attacker disadvantage.
EPT
Devourer
players. The only change that's needed is to put an upper cap on Harden Shield (for example, each invocation negates AT MOST 20 damage so they don't hard-hard counter mech and weapons upgrades would actually be useful).
).
