EPTIf anyone here has played tvp at a high level they will tell u once the game gets to 3 base toss with HT's.... your hopes of being aggressive to that toss are now gone. There is literally almost no way to be aggressive vs HT into the late game and things just start to stagnate.. its not good for gameplay. and im glad it was removed....It's too strong vs bio...
Thoughts on Design - Removing Gameplay for Balance - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
FrostyTreats
United States355 Posts
If anyone here has played tvp at a high level they will tell u once the game gets to 3 base toss with HT's.... your hopes of being aggressive to that toss are now gone. There is literally almost no way to be aggressive vs HT into the late game and things just start to stagnate.. its not good for gameplay. and im glad it was removed....It's too strong vs bio... | ||
|
parn
France296 Posts
On March 06 2011 11:46 how2TL wrote: I was implying that 2v2 was important in making the Reaper change. I'm not sure what you're trying to say at all. Yeye, I've understood what you implied, and my post was friendly don't worry  But regarding the rest of the answer in the interview I also say you have to read between the lines. The reason of the changes is not about 2v2, or 3v3 or 4v4 or even 1v1, it's about pleasing the major part of the players ("players of all levels", ie: casual/newbies). And as I've said many times on those kind of threads, Blizzard don't care about the pro scene, Blizzard cares about profit, which depends on how many "players of all levels" (again) play/buy the game. So, one more time, i'm repeating that wondering why Blizzard did this or that, is, from a non-casual player point of view, totally useless. The reason is that Blizzard managers themselves think the game from a casual player point of view. In other words and for example, the rush distance time on Lost Temple is really far from their concerns. See what i mean? | ||
|
Toadvine
Poland2234 Posts
In other news, I'd like to propose one interpretation of this patching method. Some of you might be familiar with WoW Arena PvP, and the hilarious rollercoaster of balance changes it's regularly subjected to. Now, at one point, a member of the development team (think it was Ghostcrawler, but not entirely sure), commented upon their balancing method with something akin to "When we make a change, we intend it to fix a specific problem. We'd rather have a decisive, drastic change, that we know would work, than a subtle one, that could work, but offers no guarantee." Now, this is just one of the possible explanations, but if it were true, it would be pretty catastrophic for the game, I feel. | ||
|
BrTarolg
United Kingdom3574 Posts
its not about units and big balling 1a groups into each other The way the game flows is completely different, and it is much more streamlined and structured than sc2... Its normal for terran to have a huge army advantage over protoss, an army which protoss can never hope to go head up against and win Its normal for zerg to be constantly larvae starved and have minimal drones and use 11 units grouped with an overlord to stall for 5 minutes Things like this, doesn't happen in SC2 - we compare units constantly in sc2, but its just silly to do this in BW (i mean, try comparing a vulture lol) Its hard to explain, its not even anything to do with the macro/micro mechanics of BW, but just the gameplay itself (ok, so you cant 1a in bw...) There are a few things in particular - cliffs and true defenders advantage is just so null in sc2 compared to BW expansions are alot more "expensive" in sc2 - in bw expanding is more about the game flow and positioning, like "ah ok i got archons, now i can push out safely and expand", or "ah i got mutas, now im safe for a bit i can expand" In sc2, there is no such parralell really - maybe you can say "well now i got 2 colossi, so its OK to expand" but its hardly the same as seige tanks, mutas or lurkers etc. Its never "ok, i got a really safe timing where you can expand" in sc2 - theres no unit which gives you a massive overwhelming defenders advantage to let you do this (its to the point where protosses all over cannon like crazy to get the chance to expand) Units are a million x more manouverable than in BW - even if you compare tanks now to tanks back then, the difference is huge ---- So what does this mean? Well stuff is balanced differently - like you can actually compare a roach to a stalker (lol sucks to be a stalker) - because battles are frequently calculated by army+supply costs and the like and small things like this really build up quickly You can actually directly compare unit costs and fights because it genuinely tends to be that you gain such an overwhelming advantage from habving all your army together (as opposed to spreading out and attacking - usually your small force gets crushed and then you only have a small force vs a big force - units don't compare like this to BW) So as a result, balance is kinda different At the same time, i really disagree with a lot of the balance changes (especially stuff like depot b4 barracks) (or lol @ amulet) but whether these changes are good or not, is just my opinion. My opinion is they should make the gameflow smoother - but its extremely hard to know how to do this, im not a progamer or a game designer! Don't ask me lol But the way to balance the game is different it just cant be the same as BW because its a mechanically different game I hope that makes sense ^^~ | ||
|
randplaty
205 Posts
SC2 introduced bonuses for "armored" or "light." In a sense Blizzard introduced more imbalance in the specific units in order to create a more dynamic game. There are a lot more hard counters. Every unit has a hard counter. This is VERY different from BW. Hydras are owned by collossus. Stalkers are owned by marauders. This just did not happen to hydras and goonz in BW. Blizzard refuses to nerf or buff any of the core units in SC2... so these huge imbalances exist. The marine, hydra, and stalker will not receive any changes because they're afraid that small changes to these units will completely change the game... which might be true. The problem is that there are huge imbalances within these core units which are causing the imbalances in the game. Because Blizzard is too scared to balance the core units, they are using peripheral changes to peripheral units and upgrades in order to balance the game. This may or may not work. We will see. Examples: Blizzard refuses to change the Stalker when it's clearly the problem with the PvT matchup.... so they have to do drastic changes to Khaydarian Amulet and Stim. Blizzard refuses to change the marine when it's clearly the problem with TvZ... and therefore they have to do bunker changes and infestor changes. | ||
|
Slago
Canada726 Posts
| ||
|
KillerPlague
United States1386 Posts
| ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
EDIT: Yeah, this sounds good on paper, but I realize people are losing money because of this ATM. Unfortunately if Blizz changes the game for that every time nobody will ever be happy because the game itself won't have a chance to stabilize like BW (...still not convinced TvZ is 100% balanced ^.^ but close enough). | ||
|
Tor
Canada231 Posts
The sc2 balance team isn't retarded, they are simply taking a slow and delicate approach to balancing that will allow them to push the game in the direction the community wants whether the community realizes it or not. | ||
|
CellTech
Canada396 Posts
| ||
|
CellTech
Canada396 Posts
| ||
|
cheesemaster
Canada1975 Posts
On March 06 2011 10:20 parn wrote: After reading this, am i still the only one who think some Blizzard employees are paid to post on forums and troll the different SC2 communities threads? Your post is also good, it's a good complement to OP. I'm pretty sure some "smart" changes would easily fix a lot of problems. About the warp-in mechanics for example, i've always thought that it needs a fix to "invert" the production change time for all units, example: if you choose to mute your gateways into warpgates, then units takes more time to be build instead of less (making the upgrade more logical and balanced imo) - for example 5-10 secs more. This will balance the warp mechanic and add another strategic aspect. Honestly, who has ever switch from warpgate mode to gateway mode? Never seen that, so why give this option? This show how lost Blizzard is with the core of SC2. Reaper as you said is also a good example, this is the "awesome, fun, new unit" that noone use or just one time per game, and as a stronger scv, to scout ... The critical problem with Blizzard last patches is that changes are not meant to make the game better, they're just intended to quickly get rid of problems: "Wtf reapers a little too strong in TvZ? Ok let's nerf this shit so we never hear about it anymore". Same with void speed upgrade, same with templar amulet, etc ... That's just crazy. Honestly i wish gateways were more viable or as viable as warpgates, I would macro like a beast if i put all my gateways on one hotkey and pumped out units to mass up missing warp ins i think is the downside to having warpgates you can queue up another unit just as one is about to finish and never miss a production cycle, but with the way warpgates reinforce and can help get you out of bad situations so easily and just that your units build faster it doesnt make sense to keep them as gateways =( | ||
|
KingAce
United States471 Posts
The advantage BW had is that it didn't have a million fans throwing ideas at Blizz for units to add into the game. From the beginning the BW designers had a vision for the units of each race, so from the ground up, balancing BW was easier, because the roles of the units were well defined. Even in 2v2 or 3v3 matches. SC2 will take forever to balance, some of the patches balance the game, while creating new balance issues we might not currently see. And the expansions are going to make it even more difficult to balance with any new units or mechanics they introduce. The game just doesn't have a solid structure. | ||
|
morimacil
France921 Posts
For example, zerg doesnt have any counterattacking options very early on, and also doesnt have any defending advantage. So that makes 5 rax reaper pretty good, after all, the zerg cant counter, and has a terribly hard time defending, since they have no defender's advantage. So blizzard patches the blatantly obvious symptom, the reapers, but not the cause. So then toss starts walling in zergs with double pylon and a cannon. ramps get nerfed. Then its 2rax bunkercheese that arrives. So now they are nerfing bunkers slightly. But unless they fix the actual issue and give zergs an effective way to defend early on, there will always be some cheesy pressure build that will get abused, either that, or they will have to keep nerfing every single unit or building that can be used offensively early on. -_- | ||
|
DyEnasTy
United States3714 Posts
On March 05 2011 20:54 SlapMySalami wrote: Terran cheese is not removed, it is still pretty darn rampant. The reason reapers were nerfed is because reaper/ling 2s were dominating the 2s scene. It was literally impossible for comps like P/P to beat this. I do not have a source I think it was in an interview. Well alot ot the is due to small maps and SC2 mechanics. So its like comparing oranges to apples. | ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
On March 06 2011 12:00 FrostyTreats wrote: Dont over look the amulet upgrade. it is a serious fucking issue. If anyone here has played tvp at a high level they will tell u once the game gets to 3 base toss with HT's.... your hopes of being aggressive to that toss are now gone. There is literally almost no way to be aggressive vs HT into the late game and things just start to stagnate.. its not good for gameplay. and im glad it was removed....It's too strong vs bio... Jinro says different :o http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=196458#11 | ||
|
Cabinet Sanchez
Australia1097 Posts
They added a LOT of stuff to SC2 and I have to wonder if they aren't regretting it. 2 more expansion packs to come - there's going to be so much crossover in features and abilities per unit. - Terran already have some very multi-purpose units (Thor, marines) - Zerg has the mutalisk etc. Imagine in 2 expansion packs time - there's going to be a huge quantity of hotkeys and abilities. | ||
|
LesPhoques
Canada782 Posts
On March 06 2011 12:00 FrostyTreats wrote: Dont over look the amulet upgrade. it is a serious fucking issue. If anyone here has played tvp at a high level they will tell u once the game gets to 3 base toss with HT's.... your hopes of being aggressive to that toss are now gone. There is literally almost no way to be aggressive vs HT into the late game and things just start to stagnate.. its not good for gameplay. and im glad it was removed....It's too strong vs bio... One point to you sir: Don't stay on Tier 1 unit seriously, learn how to play. By the time he has HT's which Tier 3 unit and it takes forever to make it useful. Get some Tier 3 unit man, don't stick to MMM. | ||
|
Louuster
Canada2869 Posts
| ||
|
suejak
Japan545 Posts
Seriously, what's with all this boo-hooing? That's an incredible accomplishment by the designers! I tend to agree that huge changes are bad, but the amulet is a little silly. I mean, it really makes it too easy to defend bio drops in the late game. However, you do have to wonder if maybe terrans could have made some other unit choice for drops... something less vulnerable to storms... (Of course, nothing comes to mind.) | ||
| ||
