EPTBeta Balance Update #13 - Page 26
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Cababel
United States31 Posts
| ||
|
sYstim
Canada161 Posts
| ||
|
Hattori_Hanzo
Singapore1229 Posts
On February 09 2013 13:43 Infernal_dream wrote: Forcing you to pull drones is doing damage in itself. Not to mention he can outmicro your 4 roaches and a queen. You can't really do shit. You're going to right click the queen onto the medivac and then all 4 battlehellions are going to melt it and then run away. He'll come back 2 minutes later and kill your mineral line. So the Zerg loses to the better Terran. I don't see a problem with this. No more free lunch. Everyone has brought up how Zergs get to "just drone up" without repercussion. Not today.  | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On February 09 2013 14:57 sYstim wrote: i think the +shield change is to help vs immortals in addition to oneshot zealot/stalkers again I am actually curious. Does the +shield actually do 35 damage to shields or do hardened shields prevent that? | ||
|
AKA.
76 Posts
On February 09 2013 15:04 blade55555 wrote: I am actually curious. Does the +shield actually do 35 damage to shields or do hardened shields prevent that? In the case of the widow mine the attack would ignore hardened shield, as it is still a spell (think emp damage). If it was added to, say a tank, then I have no idea how blizzard might implement it, but I believe hardened shield would block it by default (like if you made the change in the editor right now). Edited for clarity. | ||
|
AKA.
76 Posts
Sorry, I just added this in case it helps someone understand. | ||
|
Digitalis
United States1043 Posts
On February 09 2013 15:04 blade55555 wrote: I am actually curious. Does the +shield actually do 35 damage to shields or do hardened shields prevent that? just tested, it it goes through hardened shields like a knife through butter... | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On February 09 2013 16:03 Digitalis wrote: just tested, it it goes through hardened shields like a knife through butter... Ah nice I imagine this would help a bit verse immortals and mech being viable, but I could be wrong as I am no terran player :D | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On February 09 2013 14:27 TheSwagger wrote: You can't try to fix every issue at the same time... Allow the scientific method its due process. Afterall, this is beta, no point in getting your dick in a twist until a month has gone by from launch and the game is broken. Sure you can try to fix everything in one go ... but you have to a) think long and hard about what is wrong with the game atm and - most importantly - b) have zero holy cows when you do it. You MUST BE prepared to change everything ... no matter how much you like it or want it in the game. Blizzard has too many holy cows to actually do that and the "scientific method" they use is to "change stuff until the matchups are at 50% winrate (roughly)". That makes sense from a limited perspective, but does it also guarantee a satisfying and fun gameplay in the process? Does it guarantee that things like Medivacs healing Battle Hellions or Widow Mine bonus damage to shields (and no other Terran attack) make sense? A good and healthy game community STARTS WITH A FUN GAME and only after that has been achieved should you think about the competitive side of things. Sadly Blizzard started with the second step and defined fun as "winning" and "bigger / more explosions". --- Some people will know Dungeons & Dragons and the producers of this game have split their own community into two factions by releasing a controversial 4th edition a few years ago. They broke with every tradition by making all classes follow the same formula compared to keeping the "Wizards are more powerful but run out of spells quickly while Fighters can swing their sword all day long" principle. Why did they do that? Because people have started whining about "balance" after they started "PvP class comparisons" ... which is kinda pointless in an "us Players against them monsters" game. People were also complaining about "being forced to play a healer" and in the new edition you couldnt really play a pure healer anymore, which means that choice was lost for those who actually LIKE to play the healer. I feel a similar mindset has been present in the Blizzard development team and this has created a less open gameplay for multiplayer in SC2. You cant play the Terran Siege game anymore and all the promises of Blizzard to make mech viable in TvP have resulted in buffs to some support units which again split the community. Bonus damage to shields and mech units becoming healable are really really terrible decisions which are necessary to keep their house of cards of bad design decisions standing. They really should throw all their holy cows overboard, take a deep breath and try to look at the gameplay objectively ... and then make the necessary changes. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On February 09 2013 10:44 Excludos wrote: Am I getting this right people. Are you whining about the WM + shield damage not being a pretty enough solution?! When in ever did "We have a balance issue, the best way to fix it is this" not become the right way of doing it? Do you have a better solution at hand that would effectively do the same thing? Please. I'd rather have a fun and balanced game as opposed to one which you personally think is "right". Well, flavor aside, there's the question of good design. Your statement that this is the "best way to fix it" is not a fact in evidence. Does it fix it? Yes. Is it the best way to do so? That requires some evidence. The point, again aside from flavor, is that when you start getting very specific damage bonuses, the designers are clearly reaching for very particular tools that can lead to over-design. If the primary means you have of fixing a problem is slapping an arbitrary damage bonus on something, then what happens when that something already has a damage bonus on it? Do you put two of them on? Maybe three? The tools of design need to extend beyond damage bonuses. And there are kinds of damage bonuses that should be off-limits. Personally, I'm fine with bonuses vs biological and shields. On February 09 2013 16:13 Rabiator wrote:Some people will know Dungeons & Dragons and the producers of this game have split their own community into two factions by releasing a controversial 4th edition a few years ago. They broke with every tradition by making all classes follow the same formula compared to keeping the "Wizards are more powerful but run out of spells quickly while Fighters can swing their sword all day long" principle. Why did they do that? Because people have started whining about "balance" after they started "PvP class comparisons" ... which is kinda pointless in an "us Players against them monsters" game. People were also complaining about "being forced to play a healer" and in the new edition you couldnt really play a pure healer anymore, which means that choice was lost for those who actually LIKE to play the healer. First, no. Every edition of D&D breaks the base. That's what it does. Every single edition, from AD&D 1st to D&D Next, has split the community. There are still people who think 1e is the best D&D ever and the rest is dumbed down drivel. Every edition is controversial. Second yes, they broke traditions. But not the ones you claim. The tradition they broke was "Fighters are just pointless meatshields past level 10, while Wizards get to do all of the useful work." They allowed melee classes to actually have the same tactical and strategic depth as spellcasters. Yes, some people want to play a boring, uncomplicated class. But some of us don't. And some of us who don't also don't want to be forced into playing Wizards just to get combat that's tactically interesting past 10th level. And some of us want our characters to meaningfully contribute past 15th level without being spellcasters. In 4e I can do that. In 3e/Pathfinder, I can't. So while you can't play your pure healer, I get to play the class I always wanted. On February 09 2013 16:13 Rabiator wrote:I feel a similar mindset has been present in the Blizzard development team and this has created a less open gameplay for multiplayer in SC2. You cant play the Terran Siege game anymore and all the promises of Blizzard to make mech viable in TvP have resulted in buffs to some support units which again split the community. Bonus damage to shields and mech units becoming healable are really really terrible decisions which are necessary to keep their house of cards of bad design decisions standing. They really should throw all their holy cows overboard, take a deep breath and try to look at the gameplay objectively ... and then make the necessary changes. It is the "holy cows" (the term is "sacred cow." "Holy cow" is an exclamation) of SC1 that got them into this mess. I suspect if they had their way, Siege Tanks wouldn't even be in SC2. They're only here because they're a popular SC1 unit. We would have had the alpha version of the Thor, which was a big robot thing with a ton of Hp and an AoE barrage special ability. The difference between 4e and SC2 is this: 4e was different, but it was well designed for it's specific purpose. You may or may not like that purpose, but it does the job it's intending to very well. SC2 is basically SC1 with some different, very foreign feeling stuff bolted on to it. Basically, there are two games fighting in SC2: SC1 and some other game with entirely different units and such. SC2 tries to do it half-way and fails because the middle-of-the-road approach doesn't work. There are other areas that SC2 fails in, but that's not important for this point. | ||
|
Hattori_Hanzo
Singapore1229 Posts
On February 09 2013 16:13 Rabiator wrote: Sure you can try to fix everything in one go ... but you have to a) think long and hard about what is wrong with the game atm and - most importantly - b) have zero holy cows when you do it. You MUST BE prepared to change everything ... no matter how much you like it or want it in the game. Blizzard has too many holy cows to actually do that and the "scientific method" they use is to "change stuff until the matchups are at 50% winrate (roughly)". That makes sense from a limited perspective, but does it also guarantee a satisfying and fun gameplay in the process? Does it guarantee that things like Medivacs healing Battle Hellions or Widow Mine bonus damage to shields (and no other Terran attack) make sense? A good and healthy game community STARTS WITH A FUN GAME and only after that has been achieved should you think about the competitive side of things. Sadly Blizzard started with the second step and defined fun as "winning" and "bigger / more explosions". --- Some people will know Dungeons & Dragons and the producers of this game have split their own community into two factions by releasing a controversial 4th edition a few years ago. They broke with every tradition by making all classes follow the same formula compared to keeping the "Wizards are more powerful but run out of spells quickly while Fighters can swing their sword all day long" principle. Why did they do that? Because people have started whining about "balance" after they started "PvP class comparisons" ... which is kinda pointless in an "us Players against them monsters" game. People were also complaining about "being forced to play a healer" and in the new edition you couldnt really play a pure healer anymore, which means that choice was lost for those who actually LIKE to play the healer. I feel a similar mindset has been present in the Blizzard development team and this has created a less open gameplay for multiplayer in SC2. You cant play the Terran Siege game anymore and all the promises of Blizzard to make mech viable in TvP have resulted in buffs to some support units which again split the community. Bonus damage to shields and mech units becoming healable are really really terrible decisions which are necessary to keep their house of cards of bad design decisions standing. They really should throw all their holy cows overboard, take a deep breath and try to look at the gameplay objectively ... and then make the necessary changes. That feel. Miss old school D&D. But it had to be done. Video games made people realize fighting was more dynamic than previously thought. A new way needed to be made. Likewise WoL, has become stale because there was a FIXED method of dealing with X BO. The excitement is dying from WoL because of the limitation of variables. Every race SHOULD HAVE a unit or tactic which can do a disproportionate amount to it costs, think reaver drops, lurker ambush and spider mine baiting. I for one, welcome the dynamism that HotS brings. | ||
|
Patate
Canada441 Posts
On February 09 2013 16:13 Rabiator wrote: Sure you can try to fix everything in one go ... but you have to a) think long and hard about what is wrong with the game atm and - most importantly - b) have zero holy cows when you do it. You MUST BE prepared to change everything ... no matter how much you like it or want it in the game. Blizzard has too many holy cows to actually do that and the "scientific method" they use is to "change stuff until the matchups are at 50% winrate (roughly)". That makes sense from a limited perspective, but does it also guarantee a satisfying and fun gameplay in the process? Does it guarantee that things like Medivacs healing Battle Hellions or Widow Mine bonus damage to shields (and no other Terran attack) make sense? A good and healthy game community STARTS WITH A FUN GAME and only after that has been achieved should you think about the competitive side of things. Sadly Blizzard started with the second step and defined fun as "winning" and "bigger / more explosions". --- Some people will know Dungeons & Dragons and the producers of this game have split their own community into two factions by releasing a controversial 4th edition a few years ago. They broke with every tradition by making all classes follow the same formula compared to keeping the "Wizards are more powerful but run out of spells quickly while Fighters can swing their sword all day long" principle. Why did they do that? Because people have started whining about "balance" after they started "PvP class comparisons" ... which is kinda pointless in an "us Players against them monsters" game. People were also complaining about "being forced to play a healer" and in the new edition you couldnt really play a pure healer anymore, which means that choice was lost for those who actually LIKE to play the healer. I feel a similar mindset has been present in the Blizzard development team and this has created a less open gameplay for multiplayer in SC2. You cant play the Terran Siege game anymore and all the promises of Blizzard to make mech viable in TvP have resulted in buffs to some support units which again split the community. Bonus damage to shields and mech units becoming healable are really really terrible decisions which are necessary to keep their house of cards of bad design decisions standing. They really should throw all their holy cows overboard, take a deep breath and try to look at the gameplay objectively ... and then make the necessary changes. Agreed... Blizzard should fix what is wrong with the game first, not the balance. The game is not fun to watch, and streams show it blatantly. The game is almost dead now. Could the guy giving the Stream views statistics tell us how things are doing this month and the last few? Do you guys really think adding ( and balancing) a few new units will help with the fact that the game is a mess right now? A good zerg gets maxed out in 11 minutes.. players start doing damage (excluding cheese) at around 5 minutes, which leaves only a 6 BLIZZARD minutes window to actually do some harass play. Not long enough, and that is without mentioning how boring those "macro" games are... two deathballs dancing and trying to engage the other one the most efficiently as possible. You're on 5 bases mr.Terran? I dont really give a shit, I've maxed out on 3 with about 70 workers, (you've got 90 SCVs because you play a MACRO style) I've defended your drops, now watch my unkillable 1a protoss deathball slaughter you? Oh you've got a better economy? more bases? I really don't care about that, you'll never re-max fast enough to give a resistance. I've played PvTs against way stronger opponents than I was, and I've destroyed them with this stupid principle (and un-watchable from a spectator's view). Where's the macro? Where's the map control? Where is the good harassment ( multi-prong engagements is not an harassment)? This game has so few of all of it that most viewers got sick and tired of this. And I'm sorry for bringing in the truth so harshly.. but with patches like this, with this constant ignoring of the fundamental flaws of this game, we are gonna see the death of this game. Who will actually care about this game in a year or two? Everyone will have moved on, and that's really sad considering the expectations we've been having since 2010. We wanted these OSL moments of the past for SC2, but Koreans have moved on to different games. They don't feel like watching a dumbed-down version of BW with some flashy fireworks and terrible terrible damage. | ||
|
SpecKROELLchen
Germany151 Posts
On February 09 2013 14:27 TheSwagger wrote: You can't try to fix every issue at the same time... Allow the scientific method its due process. Afterall, this is beta, no point in getting your dick in a twist until a month has gone by from launch and the game is broken. How can you still say that? "its jsut beta". Sure if the beta starts and its imbalance its fine, but when you don´t see the game beeing pushed into the right direction, you should start thinkning. Because 1 month until release is nothing, when it comes to blizzards balancing. | ||
|
pmp10
3313 Posts
With 2-3 patches to go this sadly means that mech TvP will remain a fringe strategy. It wouldn't be so bad if Blizzard actually made a serious attempt at making it work but if the best they could do in anti-protoss department is +shield damage on a mine then the entire prospect was doomed from the start. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On February 09 2013 17:13 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: That feel. Miss old school D&D. But it had to be done. Video games made people realize fighting was more dynamic than previously thought. A new way needed to be made. Likewise WoL, has become stale because there was a FIXED method of dealing with X BO. The excitement is dying from WoL because of the limitation of variables. Every race SHOULD HAVE a unit or tactic which can do a disproportionate amount to it costs, think reaver drops, lurker ambush and spider mine baiting. I for one, welcome the dynamism that HotS brings. The whole point of that D&D comparison is that you cant turn a pen-and-paper game into a computer game. They are different and they didnt realize it. One of the biggest complaints I had was that all the "utility spells" and "flexible spells" were taken out of the game without any replacement. You cant do "illusion spells" to trick an opponent in 4e "D&D" and thats the problem ... they lost a ton of flavor. On February 09 2013 17:13 NicolBolas wrote: First, no. Every edition of D&D breaks the base. That's what it does. Every single edition, from AD&D 1st to D&D Next, has split the community. There are still people who think 1e is the best D&D ever and the rest is dumbed down drivel. Every edition is controversial. Second yes, they broke traditions. But not the ones you claim. The tradition they broke was "Fighters are just pointless meatshields past level 10, while Wizards get to do all of the useful work." They allowed melee classes to actually have the same tactical and strategic depth as spellcasters. Yes, some people want to play a boring, uncomplicated class. But some of us don't. And some of us who don't also don't want to be forced into playing Wizards just to get combat that's tactically interesting past 10th level. And some of us want our characters to meaningfully contribute past 15th level without being spellcasters. In 4e I can do that. In 3e/Pathfinder, I can't. So while you can't play your pure healer, I get to play the class I always wanted. It is the "holy cows" (the term is "sacred cow." "Holy cow" is an exclamation) of SC1 that got them into this mess. I suspect if they had their way, Siege Tanks wouldn't even be in SC2. They're only here because they're a popular SC1 unit. We would have had the alpha version of the Thor, which was a big robot thing with a ton of Hp and an AoE barrage special ability. The difference between 4e and SC2 is this: 4e was different, but it was well designed for it's specific purpose. You may or may not like that purpose, but it does the job it's intending to very well. SC2 is basically SC1 with some different, very foreign feeling stuff bolted on to it. Basically, there are two games fighting in SC2: SC1 and some other game with entirely different units and such. SC2 tries to do it half-way and fails because the middle-of-the-road approach doesn't work. There are other areas that SC2 fails in, but that's not important for this point. Sure, 4e was designed to be "computer compatible", but they lost a ton of flavor and flexibility which a computer game simply cant do. (see above) So designing a pen-and-paper game to be computer compatible was a bad idea. They had their grand plan of the "online dungeon system" where people could do the tabletop part of the game, but did that ever work? It reduces the game to the dumbest part of it and makes roleplaying totally impossible. That is what the core of an awesome D&D campaign is and not the fighting. The point of a D&D group is to survive the fights together and if your fighters feel like unimportant pawns it is the mistake of the DM to not threaten the mages enough and put them in their place. Mine did and I never had "awesome power" in those fights as a mage ... the Fighters did all the killing and that was good. Why would the technology for Siege Tank production be lost in just a few years? Starcraft 2 is based on a STORY and this happens only a few years after the end of BW. Losing that kind of technology would have made as much sense as not having Science Vessels and Wraiths and Vultures with Spider Mines anymore does. They decided to start with a clean sheet of paper when designing SC2 instead of starting with BW as a baseline and advance in small steps from there on. Thats the problem ... they designed a totally new game instead of improving on a popular and working one. They chose and chose badly, because no one can claim that "BW2.0 with some new units" would have been worse that SC2, but since that would have been a more solid starting point it would have been easier than starting from scratch. If SC2 had been "BW2.0 with 3 new units for each side" would you have found that boring? I wouldnt. The new bonus damage types are just a consequence of a flawed core system which relies far too much on masses of units being easily produced and controlled ... which they are afraid to change (= remove). | ||
|
Ulargg
Netherlands33 Posts
On February 09 2013 11:25 sagefreke wrote: Why throw 100/100 early into overlord speed against widow mines when you can build a spore crawler for 125 minerals? I just can't see a reasonable justification for it being hatch tech. The first 200 gas Zerg uses is crucial in every matchup. Depending how it is used it can win or cost Z the game. A spore doesn't prevent your units from getting hit; especially early game this is an issue. Throwing away an overlord or two to soak up the damage of some mines can be quite cost effective. | ||
|
Cronosc2
Germany108 Posts
[B] Terran Widow Mine -The primary target damage for Sentinel Missiles has been increased from 125 to 125 +35 vs. Shields. 12. please i have enough problems vs widow mines already | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On February 08 2013 21:04 Rabiator wrote: Isnt it obvious why they dont do this? They LOATHE the Siege Tank (why else did they buff everything else around it?) and want to get rid of it. The first - somewhat obvious - attempt was the Warhound, which featured the same kind of bonus damage, but was booed so much by the community that they removed it ASAP. The second attempt to "sneakily replace it" is by buffing the Widow Mine ... a unit which is powerful but doesnt synergize well with other units of an *army*. Siege Tank and Carrier are two "non-tier 1" remnants of core units from BW and they really really REALLY want to get rid of them. Why else did neither of them get buffed significantly? The Hydralisk is rather necessary as a ground based AA unit, so they cant get rid of it, but I guess they dont like it much either. Wow... can't believe your even claiming that. If they hated Siege Tank so much it makes no sense that they would removed tanks instead... Second, widow mines function NOTHING like a siege tank. Third, Widow mines have great synergy with other units - especially siege tanks! I had to ask you this in the other topic, but you kindly ignored it, do you even play HotS beta? Because your claims show you aren't aware of the current balance changes, you don't know the metagame, you don't know the synergy, you don't know how the new abilities work, and you have some real crazy claims like they hate siege tanks when they recently been buffed and can now have enough out early enough to stop any ~7 minute aggression if you scout the enemy, on top of being able to do their own aggression within 30 seconds of that. On February 09 2013 16:13 Rabiator wrote: Sure you can try to fix everything in one go ... but you have to a) think long and hard about what is wrong with the game atm and - most importantly - b) have zero holy cows when you do it. You MUST BE prepared to change everything ... no matter how much you like it or want it in the game. Blizzard has too many holy cows to actually do that and the "scientific method" they use is to "change stuff until the matchups are at 50% winrate (roughly)". That makes sense from a limited perspective, but does it also guarantee a satisfying and fun gameplay in the process? Does it guarantee that things like Medivacs healing Battle Hellions or Widow Mine bonus damage to shields (and no other Terran attack) make sense? From every indication according to what you are saying, your just pissed off because they didnt give the bonus shield damage to the unit you wanted (siege tank).... Have you played it to see how it works in action, to judge the synergy for yourself, and to be able to judge for yourself if it's fun or not? I feel a similar mindset has been present in the Blizzard development team and this has created a less open gameplay for multiplayer in SC2. You cant play the Terran Siege game anymore and all the promises of Blizzard to make mech viable in TvP have resulted in buffs to some support units which again split the community. Bonus damage to shields and mech units becoming healable are really really terrible decisions which are necessary to keep their house of cards of bad design decisions standing. They really should throw all their holy cows overboard, take a deep breath and try to look at the gameplay objectively ... and then make the necessary changes. You have claimed Terrans can't play siege game anymore in both TvP and TvZ in the other topic now... Which is blatantly not true. Your (again) ignoring other buffs Terran got.... What are your motives, man? All you do on these forums anymore is complain about design and balance, you aren't up to date on how things work, Your complaints aren't even backed up by specific problems or data indicating what an issue is. And you haven't had a single constructive post where you helped another user, or looked for solutions to a specific problem you were having. All signs indicate to the fact that you don't even play the beta but yet are for some reason arguing about balance and design issues and acting like Terran has been unfairly treated, all things that you know absolutely nothing about if you aren't even playing... On February 09 2013 18:38 Rabiator wrote: If SC2 had been "BW2.0 with 3 new units for each side" would you have found that boring? I wouldnt. The new bonus damage types are just a consequence of a flawed core system which relies far too much on masses of units being easily produced and controlled ... which they are afraid to change (= remove). From everything you just said, including your comments about other games, it seems you are the one guilty of being afraid to change. Besides, masses of units being produced is a problem of the economy/maps, not the damage types. Damage types are a result of unit/racial balance, not economy. Those are two completely different issues... | ||
|
KovuTalli
United Kingdom325 Posts
| ||
|
mrjpark
United States276 Posts
On February 08 2013 10:32 avilo wrote: Pretty much this. It's very pitiful that the beta has been out this long and blizzard has been unwilling to make the necessary changes to make mech tvp viable. They refuse to listen and they will not listen it looks like until post-release when they realize mech tvp is still shit. Why do people still say this? They've already made a statement months ago that they don't really care that people want BW mech and that they don't agree with that direction. They'd rather help the game grow towards a more bio-mech style, because it provides more flexibility and interesting games from their point of view, while a pure siege tank mech would be "too slow". Do I agree with them? Hell no. But they said it, so at no point are these patches a betrayal of our trust. They've already come out and said it directly...to expect them to just randomly go back and give us mech is unrealistic from our side. | ||
| ||
