|
On April 14 2011 07:29 AlBundy wrote:
Just passing by to say that, sure it's pretty much confirmed that HoTS and the Protoss expansion will add new units to the game. But it's very possible that Blizzard will also choose to remove some existing units.
So in my opinion discussing the state of balance post-HoTS may be a bit premature.
I see that people are talking about the Nydus network, I'll just say that from my experience, when used defensively it can be very hard to find the right place to put them. I find their positioning extremely difficult to perform in order to maximize their effectiveness, especially on some maps. However I admit that I'm not a master of Hotkeys and I don't have 300 apm.
Also Nydus worms can be very painful to use when you need to transfer a lot of units, I believe someone mentionned zerglings earlier in this thread: in my opinion, if one chooses to use a Nydus network, one has to use it in accordance with an overall gameplan. Having an army composed of slow / low-mobility units could make the nydus really shine. Of course, one has to be aware of the maps' specifics features. But as a spectator I would love to see Nydus being used in order to maneuver units such as Ultralisks, Queens, and especially Hydralisks. I feel that Queens and Hydras are way underused atm but that may pertain to another topic.
On the other hand, I can't really comment about offensive Nydus because it depends on the player's decision making, map awareness, multi-tasking, etc.
All in all I'd say that the potential is here.
How many Nydus Networks did you build? Due to the relative slow unload speed of the Worms you should build multiple (2-3, hence why they should be a late game infrastructure investment) to unload multiple units at the same time.
|
On April 14 2011 07:33 the9thdude wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 07:29 AlBundy wrote:
Just passing by to say that, sure it's pretty much confirmed that HoTS and the Protoss expansion will add new units to the game. But it's very possible that Blizzard will also choose to remove some existing units.
So in my opinion discussing the state of balance post-HoTS may be a bit premature.
I see that people are talking about the Nydus network, I'll just say that from my experience, when used defensively it can be very hard to find the right place to put them. I find their positioning extremely difficult to perform in order to maximize their effectiveness, especially on some maps. However I admit that I'm not a master of Hotkeys and I don't have 300 apm.
Also Nydus worms can be very painful to use when you need to transfer a lot of units, I believe someone mentionned zerglings earlier in this thread: in my opinion, if one chooses to use a Nydus network, one has to use it in accordance with an overall gameplan. Having an army composed of slow / low-mobility units could make the nydus really shine. Of course, one has to be aware of the maps' specifics features. But as a spectator I would love to see Nydus being used in order to maneuver units such as Ultralisks, Queens, and especially Hydralisks. I feel that Queens and Hydras are way underused atm but that may pertain to another topic.
On the other hand, I can't really comment about offensive Nydus because it depends on the player's decision making, map awareness, multi-tasking, etc.
All in all I'd say that the potential is here. How many Nydus Networks did you build? Due to the relative slow unload speed of the Worms you should build multiple (2-3, hence why they should be a late game infrastructure investment) to unload multiple units at the same time.
You mean 2-3 at the same location? Hmm indeed that's clever. I usually try to make 4 nydus spread across the portion of the map that I control. I'll definitely try that technique.
btw I play 50% protoss, 50% zerg/terran so I'm definitely not an expert, but thanks for the tip.
|
On April 14 2011 07:10 zev318 wrote:
blizzard doesn't care about BW, but they certainly do about SC2, there is a difference between the 2.
sure, the experiences of BW can shed some light on SC2, but really, it's BW, and not SC2. that was then and this is now, whatever happened for BW might not ever happen for SC2, no one will know.
Just because they aren't the same game doesn't mean that the fundamental logic and principles behind players solving challenges to advance the metagame are different as well.
On April 14 2011 07:10 zev318 wrote:
what i would hate to have happen is, 6 months or even 1 year from now, zerg is still suffering from this issue.
But even if we knew that would happen (which we don't), how exactly do you suggest we prevent it? Any patch changes we make today could produce the same effect in 6 months or a year - maybe Zergs won't be suffering from the Deathball, maybe it will be Protoss suffering from Infestor balls.
The point is, balance patch changes do not guarantee that the balance IMPROVED, they only guarantee that the balance CHANGED. Moreover, each balance patch is like a small "reset" of the game - every time it happens, players know even less about the game than they did before.
The changes in the metagame MUST be player-driven, not patch-driven, for a game to have any long term success. Success of the game depends on players really learning the game in-depth. By constantly patching the game based on current superficial problems one race has, you prevent this learning process from happening.
On April 14 2011 07:10 zev318 wrote:
and a comment on nydus, i think its pretty useless to use offensively as it takes 20 in game seconds to build and then it only has 200hp, just too easy to kill.
But see, that's exactly the point. You can't just think that. You can't make conclusions about an RTS game based on a very primitive theorycrafting thought process. Until you've played hundreds of games trying the same thing against competent players and testing all the different timings and locations for the offensive Nydus in all maps and match-ups, as well as suitable build orders and follow ups, you just DON'T KNOW that it's useless. You can dedicate your entire Starcraft 2 "life" to experimenting with Nydus networks and there is still no way you could know that there isn't a sick good timing and use for it that you overlooked.
it's exactly what Tyler tried to say with the TvZ analogy in Brood War - why would you make a Dropship, fill it up with units thus making it extremely valuable and risky to lose, and then use it against a race that has fast flying Banelings and vision all over the map? Wouldn't you say that sounds way more insane than an offensive Nydus (where the only thing you risk is really the Nydus itself)? Yet that's exactly what Terran players did.
RTS games have insane depth and complexity PLUS they depend a lot on player's skill and execution. The result of these facts is that strategies are often COMPLETELY counter-intuitive and very difficult to figure out initially.
|
i think nydus worms could unload units based on the food it use... like 4 lings 2 roachs or 1 ultra(more then 4 should be 1 by 1).
|
On April 14 2011 07:31 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 07:24 Defacer wrote:
I just got to say, I did the Day 9 Daily yesterday, and beat a Toss. The Toss was pretty bad/predictable and tried to camp on two bases. The only real harass I did was slow down his production with Overseers.
But when you defend with only queens and spine crawlers, holy shit does your economy explode! I had about 3000/2000 banked and not enough larva to spend it fast enough.
I'm really looking forward to giving it another shot tonight against a better player. You end up in a situation similar to Spanishwa's build ... you're not as vulnerable in the early game as you think you are if you have enough queens and base defenses ... although your third, fourth and fifth expansions feel pretty vulnerable until you get real units.
make more hatches dood
I know, right? I just really wasn't used to having so much cash during the early-mid game. I'm looking forward to seeing what a GOOD player can do with this Daily ...  .
I would submit my replay if I wasn't ashamed!
|
On April 14 2011 07:33 the9thdude wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 07:29 AlBundy wrote:
Just passing by to say that, sure it's pretty much confirmed that HoTS and the Protoss expansion will add new units to the game. But it's very possible that Blizzard will also choose to remove some existing units.
So in my opinion discussing the state of balance post-HoTS may be a bit premature.
I see that people are talking about the Nydus network, I'll just say that from my experience, when used defensively it can be very hard to find the right place to put them. I find their positioning extremely difficult to perform in order to maximize their effectiveness, especially on some maps. However I admit that I'm not a master of Hotkeys and I don't have 300 apm.
Also Nydus worms can be very painful to use when you need to transfer a lot of units, I believe someone mentionned zerglings earlier in this thread: in my opinion, if one chooses to use a Nydus network, one has to use it in accordance with an overall gameplan. Having an army composed of slow / low-mobility units could make the nydus really shine. Of course, one has to be aware of the maps' specifics features. But as a spectator I would love to see Nydus being used in order to maneuver units such as Ultralisks, Queens, and especially Hydralisks. I feel that Queens and Hydras are way underused atm but that may pertain to another topic.
On the other hand, I can't really comment about offensive Nydus because it depends on the player's decision making, map awareness, multi-tasking, etc.
All in all I'd say that the potential is here. How many Nydus Networks did you build? Due to the relative slow unload speed of the Worms you should build multiple (2-3, hence why they should be a late game infrastructure investment) to unload multiple units at the same time.
Multiple nydus also has the benefit of walling off 1 of them so that it is more likely to finish and not get killed by workers
|
On April 14 2011 07:47 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 07:10 zev318 wrote:
blizzard doesn't care about BW, but they certainly do about SC2, there is a difference between the 2.
sure, the experiences of BW can shed some light on SC2, but really, it's BW, and not SC2. that was then and this is now, whatever happened for BW might not ever happen for SC2, no one will know. The changes in the metagame MUST be player-driven, not patch-driven, for a game to have any long term success.
Changes in the metagame are of course preferable, but they require a really well designed game in the first place. Did WC3 balance sort itself out the way Brood War did? A blind faith that you shouldn't change anything can be just as bad as tampering with the game too much.
|
On April 14 2011 07:53 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 07:33 the9thdude wrote:On April 14 2011 07:29 AlBundy wrote:
Just passing by to say that, sure it's pretty much confirmed that HoTS and the Protoss expansion will add new units to the game. But it's very possible that Blizzard will also choose to remove some existing units.
So in my opinion discussing the state of balance post-HoTS may be a bit premature.
I see that people are talking about the Nydus network, I'll just say that from my experience, when used defensively it can be very hard to find the right place to put them. I find their positioning extremely difficult to perform in order to maximize their effectiveness, especially on some maps. However I admit that I'm not a master of Hotkeys and I don't have 300 apm.
Also Nydus worms can be very painful to use when you need to transfer a lot of units, I believe someone mentionned zerglings earlier in this thread: in my opinion, if one chooses to use a Nydus network, one has to use it in accordance with an overall gameplan. Having an army composed of slow / low-mobility units could make the nydus really shine. Of course, one has to be aware of the maps' specifics features. But as a spectator I would love to see Nydus being used in order to maneuver units such as Ultralisks, Queens, and especially Hydralisks. I feel that Queens and Hydras are way underused atm but that may pertain to another topic.
On the other hand, I can't really comment about offensive Nydus because it depends on the player's decision making, map awareness, multi-tasking, etc.
All in all I'd say that the potential is here. How many Nydus Networks did you build? Due to the relative slow unload speed of the Worms you should build multiple (2-3, hence why they should be a late game infrastructure investment) to unload multiple units at the same time. Multiple nydus also has the benefit of walling off 1 of them so that it is more likely to finish and not get killed by workers
The thing that ruins Nydus in the eyes of a lot of players is their use for an offensive push, rather than using them for infrastructure to have, in essence, a teleporting army when it's at home.
|
On April 14 2011 07:47 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 07:10 zev318 wrote:
blizzard doesn't care about BW, but they certainly do about SC2, there is a difference between the 2.
sure, the experiences of BW can shed some light on SC2, but really, it's BW, and not SC2. that was then and this is now, whatever happened for BW might not ever happen for SC2, no one will know. Just because they aren't the same game doesn't mean that the fundamental logic and principles behind players solving challenges to advance the metagame are different as well. Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 07:10 zev318 wrote:
what i would hate to have happen is, 6 months or even 1 year from now, zerg is still suffering from this issue. But even if we knew that would happen (which we don't), how exactly do you suggest we prevent it? Any patch changes we make today could produce the same effect in 6 months or a year - maybe Zergs won't be suffering from the Deathball, maybe it will be Protoss suffering from Infestor balls. The point is, balance patch changes do not guarantee that the balance IMPROVED, they only guarantee that the balance CHANGED. Moreover, each balance patch is like a small "reset" of the game - every time it happens, players know even less about the game than they did before. The changes in the metagame MUST be player-driven, not patch-driven, for a game to have any long term success.
Too much broodwar has muddied your thinking. Play some games other than broodwar and you'll see that generally speaking games are not initially balanced, and it requires patches from the developers to bring them in line. To this day, many of the matchups in Warcraft 3 are largely considered to be imbalanced. The metagame never came to the rescue for that game.
|
On April 14 2011 00:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 00:32 loveeholicce wrote:On April 13 2011 23:59 The KY wrote:On April 13 2011 23:49 Nakas wrote:On April 13 2011 23:37 karpo wrote:On April 13 2011 23:33 Nakas wrote:On April 13 2011 23:18 The KY wrote:
I don't understand what people want them to say in regards to balance. Do you want them to say 'Oh yeah I think Protoss is imbalanced right now.' Where would they go with that discussion? Why do you want to hear it? Will it make you feel better? What, basically, do you want.
And as a player, where do you go from there? Do you go into every ZvP thinking 'well this match up is fucking dumb, looks like I'm gonna lose'. Because that's what IdrA does and it costs him games. It costs him tournaments.
I think Inc put it best when he said 'If you think the game is totally broken, switch to Protoss, I'm sorry.'
I'm just confused because I just got to the bit where they're talking about balance, and people in this thread were acting like they just said 'use nydus l2p noobs'. They're talking about it in genuine detail, outlining their position, but I guess fucking balance whiners are deaf and blind. It's frustrating. I want them to just STFU about zerg when there is no zerg on the show. Listening to a one-sided argument about how PvZ is fine for 40 minutes, from protoss players with only a superficial understanding of zerg, was terribly obnoxious. I would have been fine if they had the discussion last week with Idra there, I might have even learned something, instead I got "build 3 control groups of infestors!" and "lolnydus". As a zerg player, the whole discussion was terribly insulting. D9 played zerg in BW and plays random in SC2. It's not like he has no clue on how high level zerg play works. BW is a different game, BW zerg is a different race than SC2 zerg. Does the fact that I played Orcs in WC1 mean I understand Protoss? And yes, I would argue that Day9's understanding of zerg is as superficial as that of the other hosts on last night. They need a zerg player that has actually tried all the crap they they've been theorycrafting about, so they don't have such a dumb one-sided argument again. What podcast did you listen to? I already said, for 40 minutes they weren't theorycrafting about zerg. They were talking about balance, mentality, and the structure of the game itself. Their reasoning for why ZvP was fine was basically "lol 20 infestors" and "lol nydus everywhere", and then a completely retarded comparison to TvZ dropships / scourge. And about how Zerg doesn't play like Terran or Protoss in the respect that you can just mass a ball and roll the other guy's ball of units. I think you missed their points. And how it's all about multi-tasking and multi-pronged attacks, and anyone who's seen Sen rape Naniwa in the GCPL finals game three, or IdrA own Cruncher in the one TSL game he won knows exactly what we're talking about. That's how Zerg is supposed to be played. Same with + Show Spoiler +Sheth vs. Artosis recently. Constant, relentless poking and dropping and nydusing and not allowing your opponent to do anything. They can't use their QQ-imba ball of death/ FFs/ colossi/ thor/ bio/ whatever because you're keeping them on their back foot the whole game. The analogy to TvZ in SC1 was that a great player is able to make all of these aggressive tactics work, regardless of how futile you think it may be (scourge easily cancel out dropship play, unless you have skill and balls). In SC2, nydus worms and drops are fantastic ways to abuse Zergs mobility and win games. And if you're hesitant to do them because they could hypothetically be stopped... tough. Anything could be stopped. Do it anyway, and make it work. Zerg isn't meant to be played the way Protoss or Terran is. That means that if you're playing Zerg with the expectation to win with the same mindset or strategies of a Protoss or Terran player (and vice-versa), then you're going to have a tough time... and probably lose. That doesn't mean that Zerg is underpowered or Protoss is OP or anything like that. Heck, the statistics of the games (both all across the board and also just in the top tier) show that all the match-ups have been relatively close to stable and balanced for quite some time now. It just means that some people are obviously uncertain as to how the underlying mechanics of each race work.
Tbh any data taken from the ladder is inconclusive because the mmr system is designed to give everyone a 50/50 w/l ratio.
|
You don't *have* to put the nydus inside your opponent's base. You could also use it as a quicker way to reinforce, just like a proxy pylon for protoss. Or retreat, for that matter.
|
On April 14 2011 07:55 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 07:47 Talin wrote:On April 14 2011 07:10 zev318 wrote:
blizzard doesn't care about BW, but they certainly do about SC2, there is a difference between the 2.
sure, the experiences of BW can shed some light on SC2, but really, it's BW, and not SC2. that was then and this is now, whatever happened for BW might not ever happen for SC2, no one will know. The changes in the metagame MUST be player-driven, not patch-driven, for a game to have any long term success. Changes in the metagame are of course preferable, but they require a really well designed game in the first place. Did WC3 balance sort itself out the way Brood War did? A blind faith that you shouldn't change anything can be just as bad as tampering with the game too much.
Nobody can guarantee that it will all work out in the end. On the other hand, Blizzard could have patched WC3 a dozen times more and still not be sure that the game would get any better, and it could still end up the same way. It's not like WC3 never got patched - it was patched to a certain point, and it didn't turn out very well - so what guarantees do you have that more patching would actually have improved the game?
Here's the thing though - if you can't be sure whether a change in balance will be an improvement, which one would you say is the optimal choice:
a) To make the change blindly as a reaction to current superficial problems in gameplay, while being only vaguely (if at all) aware of in-depth long term consequences of the change.
b) To take the time needed to realize whether a change is really needed, as time is the only real and reliable test of balance.
I would say that the first option involves a lot more of "blind faith" than the second.
|
It depends of course, and I don't think you should make changes blindly, and you shouldn't be capricious when balancing a game, you do need to give things some time. However, you shouldn't try to build the berlin wall between yourself and the possibility of balance changes the way some people seem to want to. The people balancing the game need to thoroughly understand what it is that's causing problems. If you analyse the game design then you can make very educated guesses as to what would be beneficial for the balance, and making educated guesses is something that's very common in a lot of fields. You can never know for certain, that doesn't mean you should never do anything.
If you look at the Warp Gate mechanic and the relative time and cost of the other Protoss tech you could probably deduce that PvP would be reduced to WG rushes without playing the game. Because there is no defenders advantage you can (micro being equal) only defend a WG rush with a similar number of WGs. The tech to counter WG units takes too long to reach in relation to WG tech. PvP has been like this in one form or another since early on in the beta, and even people like Tyler seem to be giving up hope that it's going to change.
By analysing the game design you can understand why things are the way they are. In a non-mirror matchup it's of course much more complicated, but you can still make educated guesses about a lot of things. Personally I don't want the Roach to get 2 armor and cost 1 supply because even if Zerg would crush Protosses with that it wouldn't be fun. I don't think that the problems with Z is something you fix just by tweaking numbers, just like you won't fix PvP by tweaking small numbers either. You could make Z win, but you wouldn't make the matchup better.
|
Only 11 spots left and Artosis isn't in grandmaster league yet!
edit: wtf idra isn't in yet either?
|
On April 14 2011 08:23 hugman wrote:
It depends of course, and I don't think you should make changes blindly, and you shouldn't be capricious when balancing a game, you do need to give things some time. However, you shouldn't try to build the berlin wall between yourself and the possibility of balance changes the way some people seem to want to. The people balancing the game need to thoroughly understand what it is that's causing problems. If you analyse the game design then you can make very educated guesses as to what would be beneficial for the balance, and making educated guesses is something that's very common in a lot of fields. You can never know for certain, that doesn't mean you should never do anything.
If you look at the Warp Gate mechanic and the relative time and cost of the other Protoss tech you could probably deduce that PvP would be reduced to WG rushes without playing the game. Because there is no defenders advantage you can (micro being equal) only defend a WG rush with a similar number of WGs. The tech to counter WG units takes too long to reach in relation to WG tech. PvP has been like this in one form or another since early on in the beta, and even people like Tyler seem to be giving up hope that it's going to change.
By analysing the game design you can understand why things are the way they are. In a non-mirror matchup it's of course much more complicated, but you can still make educated guesses about a lot of things. Personally I don't want the Roach to get 2 armor and cost 1 supply because even if Zerg would crush Protosses with that it wouldn't be fun. I don't think that the problems with Z is something you fix just by tweaking numbers, just like you won't fix PvP by tweaking small numbers either. You could make Z win, but you wouldn't make the matchup better.
I agree 100% here, while broodwar turned out great with minimal patching that's just one game there's lots of games out there that have really bad balance problems that don't get fixed and they just disapear because people will not play broken games. Blizzard does not want sc2 to be one of these games that's why they've been patching a lot.
So I think that instead of saying just play the game and see what happens later why not disscuss the imbalances in question as well as potential fixes?
|
On April 14 2011 08:45 Tachion wrote:
Only 11 spots left and Artosis isn't in grandmaster league yet!
edit: wtf idra isn't in yet either?
Idra hasn't played his game, he's been in sweden.
|
On April 14 2011 07:24 Defacer wrote:
I just got to say, I did the Day 9 Daily yesterday, and beat a Toss. The Toss was pretty bad/predictable and tried to camp on two bases. The only real harass I did was slow down his production with Overseers.
But when you defend with only queens and spine crawlers, holy shit does your economy explode! I had about 3000/2000 banked and not enough larva to spend it fast enough.
I'm really looking forward to giving it another shot tonight against a better player. You end up in a situation similar to Spanishwa's build ... you're not as vulnerable in the early game as you think you are if you have enough queens and base defenses ... although your third, fourth and fifth expansions feel pretty vulnerable until you get real units.
I started triple expanding, and had SC1-style expos with 6-7 drones on minerals, but the gases taken, so I had ludicrous gas income. You can build a RIDICULOUS amount of spines and spores even while doing this and dumping all your 10-geyser gas in infestor/brood lord or infestor/ultra and be perfectly safe.
The only problem is that it's so hard to put any pressure on the opponent until hive tech, which is actually a big problem I'm thinking of how I intend to overcome.
|
On April 14 2011 09:02 DARKHYDRA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 08:23 hugman wrote:
It depends of course, and I don't think you should make changes blindly, and you shouldn't be capricious when balancing a game, you do need to give things some time. However, you shouldn't try to build the berlin wall between yourself and the possibility of balance changes the way some people seem to want to. The people balancing the game need to thoroughly understand what it is that's causing problems. If you analyse the game design then you can make very educated guesses as to what would be beneficial for the balance, and making educated guesses is something that's very common in a lot of fields. You can never know for certain, that doesn't mean you should never do anything.
If you look at the Warp Gate mechanic and the relative time and cost of the other Protoss tech you could probably deduce that PvP would be reduced to WG rushes without playing the game. Because there is no defenders advantage you can (micro being equal) only defend a WG rush with a similar number of WGs. The tech to counter WG units takes too long to reach in relation to WG tech. PvP has been like this in one form or another since early on in the beta, and even people like Tyler seem to be giving up hope that it's going to change.
By analysing the game design you can understand why things are the way they are. In a non-mirror matchup it's of course much more complicated, but you can still make educated guesses about a lot of things. Personally I don't want the Roach to get 2 armor and cost 1 supply because even if Zerg would crush Protosses with that it wouldn't be fun. I don't think that the problems with Z is something you fix just by tweaking numbers, just like you won't fix PvP by tweaking small numbers either. You could make Z win, but you wouldn't make the matchup better. I agree 100% here, while broodwar turned out great with minimal patching that's just one game there's lots of games out there that have really bad balance problems that don't get fixed and they just disapear because people will not play broken games. Blizzard does not want sc2 to be one of these games that's why they've been patching a lot. So I think that instead of saying just play the game and see what happens later why not disscuss the imbalances in question as well as potential fixes?
Because it's blizzard's job to do so. This is how blizzards works, all they want from the playerbase is feedback, preferably constructive. Trust me, they listen.
This feedback may or may not be valuable, it's up to them. Anyway, we provide information, and they discuss potential fixes, they tweak the numbers; because they are the game developers, not us.
|
On April 14 2011 09:18 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 07:24 Defacer wrote:
I just got to say, I did the Day 9 Daily yesterday, and beat a Toss. The Toss was pretty bad/predictable and tried to camp on two bases. The only real harass I did was slow down his production with Overseers.
But when you defend with only queens and spine crawlers, holy shit does your economy explode! I had about 3000/2000 banked and not enough larva to spend it fast enough.
I'm really looking forward to giving it another shot tonight against a better player. You end up in a situation similar to Spanishwa's build ... you're not as vulnerable in the early game as you think you are if you have enough queens and base defenses ... although your third, fourth and fifth expansions feel pretty vulnerable until you get real units.
I started triple expanding, and had SC1-style expos with 6-7 drones on minerals, but the gases taken, so I had ludicrous gas income. You can build a RIDICULOUS amount of spines and spores even while doing this and dumping all your 10-geyser gas in infestor/brood lord or infestor/ultra and be perfectly safe. The only problem is that it's so hard to put any pressure on the opponent until hive tech, which is actually a big problem I'm thinking of how I intend to overcome.
Mutarisku? I'm fairly sure that they're allowed...
|
On April 14 2011 09:23 AlBundy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 09:02 DARKHYDRA wrote:On April 14 2011 08:23 hugman wrote:
It depends of course, and I don't think you should make changes blindly, and you shouldn't be capricious when balancing a game, you do need to give things some time. However, you shouldn't try to build the berlin wall between yourself and the possibility of balance changes the way some people seem to want to. The people balancing the game need to thoroughly understand what it is that's causing problems. If you analyse the game design then you can make very educated guesses as to what would be beneficial for the balance, and making educated guesses is something that's very common in a lot of fields. You can never know for certain, that doesn't mean you should never do anything.
If you look at the Warp Gate mechanic and the relative time and cost of the other Protoss tech you could probably deduce that PvP would be reduced to WG rushes without playing the game. Because there is no defenders advantage you can (micro being equal) only defend a WG rush with a similar number of WGs. The tech to counter WG units takes too long to reach in relation to WG tech. PvP has been like this in one form or another since early on in the beta, and even people like Tyler seem to be giving up hope that it's going to change.
By analysing the game design you can understand why things are the way they are. In a non-mirror matchup it's of course much more complicated, but you can still make educated guesses about a lot of things. Personally I don't want the Roach to get 2 armor and cost 1 supply because even if Zerg would crush Protosses with that it wouldn't be fun. I don't think that the problems with Z is something you fix just by tweaking numbers, just like you won't fix PvP by tweaking small numbers either. You could make Z win, but you wouldn't make the matchup better. I agree 100% here, while broodwar turned out great with minimal patching that's just one game there's lots of games out there that have really bad balance problems that don't get fixed and they just disapear because people will not play broken games. Blizzard does not want sc2 to be one of these games that's why they've been patching a lot. So I think that instead of saying just play the game and see what happens later why not disscuss the imbalances in question as well as potential fixes? Because it's blizzard's job to do so. This is how blizzards works, all they want from the playerbase is feedback, preferably constructive. Trust me, they listen. This feedback may or may not be valuable, it's up to them. Anyway, we provide information, and they discuss potential fixes, they tweak the numbers; because they are the game developers, not us.
Wasnt that what I suggested?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
