Sc2 Multiplayer Panel - Page 3

Post a Reply

Prev 1 2 3 All

hiyo_bye

United States737 Posts

October 25 2010 06:46 GMT

#41

On October 24 2010 10:44 Wargizmo wrote:

Show nested quote +

And here's the formula they use to balance the game afterwards

this was pretty clever.

I think people need to stop complaining about balance so much. blizzard cares for us!

Adaptation

Canada427 Posts

October 25 2010 09:35 GMT

#42

I would just like to state that i tried the reaper/ling strat in 2v2 and 4v4's, and it utterly dominates. We went undefeated for a while, and it was clear that something was wrong.

Do not come from the bw point of view where only 1v1 exist. 2v2+ is HUGE and that patch strongly helped.(to stop us from cheesing!)

quasit

Sweden49 Posts

October 25 2010 10:57 GMT

#43

On October 25 2010 18:35 Adaptation wrote:
I would just like to state that i tried the reaper/ling strat in 2v2 and 4v4's, and it utterly dominates. We went undefeated for a while, and it was clear that something was wrong.

Do not come from the bw point of view where only 1v1 exist. 2v2+ is HUGE and that patch strongly helped.(to stop us from cheesing!)

Should've nerfed zergling too then.

Perscienter

957 Posts

October 25 2010 13:02 GMT

#44

On October 24 2010 09:10 Happy Frog wrote:
Q: Boxer might have done better if he had spawned cross locations, do you take spawn locations in maps into account in balance stats.

A: Map balance is a big issue, don't think we take spawn location into account but it's a good point, we watch to see if race match ups become lopsided on specific maps, that's why we yanked DO / Kulas.

Location based stats might be drilling too deep but if we think there might be an issue we can access those stats

So they balance the game around the mainstream map pool and sort out the maps which deviate from the map pool too much. Not exactly what I'd like to see. Especially DO allowed for interesting macro strategies. Keep the map pool diversified, Blizzard!

Noxie

United States2227 Posts

October 25 2010 13:32 GMT

#45

Was def fun to read! We seem to have a ton of stuff in store for us. I wish they would have said more about maps as I think that is a bigger topic then what was addressed.

Eluadyl

Turkey364 Posts

October 25 2010 14:54 GMT

#46

Good read, thanks OP

However this also reminded me of knowing what you are doing and actually doing it right are two very different things. Go talk to any good scientist or engineer (aka professional nerd) and you'll see they all sound very competent and convincing. They'll still screw up pretty badly and often too

Good thing people starting to realize it's a hard job that these guys have.

Nienordir

98 Posts

October 25 2010 15:11 GMT

#47

On October 24 2010 09:10 Happy Frog wrote:
Q: (Kind of incoherent, I think the main theme is) "Are Zerg designed to need to out macro T and P?

A: Yes, specifically not supposed to be strong at pushing at Tier 2, need to macro up and get to tier 3

That seems like such a weird design choice. Z T1 feels so vulnerable&limited and then you tech to T2 just to get mobile AA/detection and a bit of map control, only to find out that the devs made T2 intentional 'weak' to force you into T3, where the fast switching of unit compositions suddenly becomes overpowered.

I don't know it just seems odd, that T&P have so many early options for harass, timing attacks and fast tech protected by wall-in, while denying all scouting (with proper play/building placement) except for overlord sacrifice. While Z has to survive, survive into roflstomp. That just isn't 'balance' all races should have a more or less equal chance throughout the game, it seems even more unfair towards Z, because larva management is already such a difficult mechanic.

Not to mention that 200/200 feels weak compared to T&P, basically you have to pile up larva/resources to get 2/3 waves with tech switching, because your army melts. A 200/200 T/P seems a lot more scary even if they don't get the time to macro up for more waves.

I don't mind macro focus and throwing a flood of bugs at the enemy (that feels very zergy), but when the devs say stuff like "yeah, well you have to survive until you reach T3 and then you're overpowered.." and think that's a decent answer..that's just wrong. A P can 4 Gate his way to the top, T has so many tools&fallbacks, while a Z is screwed until he figures out all the subtile mechanics of the game.

I don't want to complain about the state of the game, it's just that answer, which translates into "we don't care about early issues of zerg or that it requires more skill to get similar results. Our statistics are fine and you're intended to be weak until T3", which feels pretty rude.

e4e5nf3

Canada599 Posts

October 25 2010 15:19 GMT

#48

That's impressive how much work the balance team is doing. Most other companies don't put so much resources on balancing. I kind regret all my "Blizz doesn't know what the fck they're doing" now, lol.

With that said, I have a feeling a couple months from now people will forget the praises of the balance team and the "Blizz doesn't know what the fck they're doing" posts will come back....

Perscienter

957 Posts

October 26 2010 13:09 GMT

#49

They put a lot of effort into this, but that doesn't mean that they apply the proper policy.

Sanguinarius

United States3427 Posts

November 06 2010 13:52 GMT

#50

I am glad they have someone who understands all the formulas used to estimate peoples skill. Cause thats all gibberish to me.

But I am really impressed by how much they actually understand about the game.

Prev 1 2 3 All

Please or register to reply.

Sc2 Multiplayer Panel - Page 3

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming