|
On December 22 2015 00:54 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 00:24 Big J wrote:On December 21 2015 23:57 Ghanburighan wrote:
I've been following the discussion in this thread halfheartedly as what seems to be ignored the amount of flux in the scene. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but we've seen fewer high level games of LotV than for example in the beginning of HotS. The game wasn't played as extensively at high level over the beta, and at the same time the entire economy was revamped, requiring a great deal more figuring out before we can decide the state of the game. Recall the 2010 meta of WoL. Even if we account for nerfs and different maps, I don't think the game was sufficiently figured out to properly assess balance then. So I'd advise caution with trying to figure out the state of balance now. And even though we should discuss and analyze results and mechanics thoroughly, I would avoid making actual judgments based on a few haphazard tournaments this early in the game's life span. The meta is still developing. I fully agree with your analysis and balance conclusion(s) for the longrun, but I have arguments in favor of patching now (and then in 2010): 1) We don't know how the balance will ultimately look like is an argument that swings both ways. So we might as well try to balance for the moment, which on average should have a better expectation than waiting anyways. The more a designer knows about the game, the better they can target solutions. Therefore any change made to the game after obvservations should on average yield an improvement to the somewhat arbitrary 1.0 state. 2) The meta is still unstable, targeting problems now before they become an accepted dynamic under the smokescreen of asymmetric design is still much easier to communicate than pseudo-removing the swarm host 2-years after release. 3) Players play the game now. It isn't very helpful for the popularity of the game if current problems are left untouched beyond a players exit from the playerbase. Regarding point 3, do you think Flash, Rain, etc retiring is connected to the state of the game?
Absolutely not.
Personal reasons!
|
On December 22 2015 00:54 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 00:24 Big J wrote:On December 21 2015 23:57 Ghanburighan wrote:
I've been following the discussion in this thread halfheartedly as what seems to be ignored the amount of flux in the scene. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but we've seen fewer high level games of LotV than for example in the beginning of HotS. The game wasn't played as extensively at high level over the beta, and at the same time the entire economy was revamped, requiring a great deal more figuring out before we can decide the state of the game. Recall the 2010 meta of WoL. Even if we account for nerfs and different maps, I don't think the game was sufficiently figured out to properly assess balance then. So I'd advise caution with trying to figure out the state of balance now. And even though we should discuss and analyze results and mechanics thoroughly, I would avoid making actual judgments based on a few haphazard tournaments this early in the game's life span. The meta is still developing. I fully agree with your analysis and balance conclusion(s) for the longrun, but I have arguments in favor of patching now (and then in 2010): 1) We don't know how the balance will ultimately look like is an argument that swings both ways. So we might as well try to balance for the moment, which on average should have a better expectation than waiting anyways. The more a designer knows about the game, the better they can target solutions. Therefore any change made to the game after obvservations should on average yield an improvement to the somewhat arbitrary 1.0 state. 2) The meta is still unstable, targeting problems now before they become an accepted dynamic under the smokescreen of asymmetric design is still much easier to communicate than pseudo-removing the swarm host 2-years after release. 3) Players play the game now. It isn't very helpful for the popularity of the game if current problems are left untouched beyond a players exit from the playerbase. But we all know blizzard never reverses a patch. So whatever we're advocating to be changed now will be changed forever.
That is not completely true. I can remember blizzard going back on a few of their patches but I can not quite remember which one it was. There is also the case of changing a unit completely to a third option instead of going back to the first one.
|
On December 22 2015 01:27 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 00:54 Ghanburighan wrote:On December 22 2015 00:24 Big J wrote:On December 21 2015 23:57 Ghanburighan wrote:
I've been following the discussion in this thread halfheartedly as what seems to be ignored the amount of flux in the scene. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but we've seen fewer high level games of LotV than for example in the beginning of HotS. The game wasn't played as extensively at high level over the beta, and at the same time the entire economy was revamped, requiring a great deal more figuring out before we can decide the state of the game. Recall the 2010 meta of WoL. Even if we account for nerfs and different maps, I don't think the game was sufficiently figured out to properly assess balance then. So I'd advise caution with trying to figure out the state of balance now. And even though we should discuss and analyze results and mechanics thoroughly, I would avoid making actual judgments based on a few haphazard tournaments this early in the game's life span. The meta is still developing. I fully agree with your analysis and balance conclusion(s) for the longrun, but I have arguments in favor of patching now (and then in 2010): 1) We don't know how the balance will ultimately look like is an argument that swings both ways. So we might as well try to balance for the moment, which on average should have a better expectation than waiting anyways. The more a designer knows about the game, the better they can target solutions. Therefore any change made to the game after obvservations should on average yield an improvement to the somewhat arbitrary 1.0 state. 2) The meta is still unstable, targeting problems now before they become an accepted dynamic under the smokescreen of asymmetric design is still much easier to communicate than pseudo-removing the swarm host 2-years after release. 3) Players play the game now. It isn't very helpful for the popularity of the game if current problems are left untouched beyond a players exit from the playerbase. But we all know blizzard never reverses a patch. So whatever we're advocating to be changed now will be changed forever. That is not completely true. I can remember blizzard going back on a few of their patches but I can not quite remember which one it was. There is also the case of changing a unit completely to a third option instead of going back to the first one.
Not to mention their inclination to completely remove units from Terran before the beta even starts (e.g., HERC). Not saying the HERC was going to be good for the game, just saying that Blizzard wanted something for Terran at Barracks-tech, and what we got was the KD8 charge.
|
On December 22 2015 01:32 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 01:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On December 22 2015 00:54 Ghanburighan wrote:On December 22 2015 00:24 Big J wrote:On December 21 2015 23:57 Ghanburighan wrote:
I've been following the discussion in this thread halfheartedly as what seems to be ignored the amount of flux in the scene. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but we've seen fewer high level games of LotV than for example in the beginning of HotS. The game wasn't played as extensively at high level over the beta, and at the same time the entire economy was revamped, requiring a great deal more figuring out before we can decide the state of the game. Recall the 2010 meta of WoL. Even if we account for nerfs and different maps, I don't think the game was sufficiently figured out to properly assess balance then. So I'd advise caution with trying to figure out the state of balance now. And even though we should discuss and analyze results and mechanics thoroughly, I would avoid making actual judgments based on a few haphazard tournaments this early in the game's life span. The meta is still developing. I fully agree with your analysis and balance conclusion(s) for the longrun, but I have arguments in favor of patching now (and then in 2010): 1) We don't know how the balance will ultimately look like is an argument that swings both ways. So we might as well try to balance for the moment, which on average should have a better expectation than waiting anyways. The more a designer knows about the game, the better they can target solutions. Therefore any change made to the game after obvservations should on average yield an improvement to the somewhat arbitrary 1.0 state. 2) The meta is still unstable, targeting problems now before they become an accepted dynamic under the smokescreen of asymmetric design is still much easier to communicate than pseudo-removing the swarm host 2-years after release. 3) Players play the game now. It isn't very helpful for the popularity of the game if current problems are left untouched beyond a players exit from the playerbase. But we all know blizzard never reverses a patch. So whatever we're advocating to be changed now will be changed forever. That is not completely true. I can remember blizzard going back on a few of their patches but I can not quite remember which one it was. There is also the case of changing a unit completely to a third option instead of going back to the first one. Not to mention their inclination to completely remove units from Terran before the beta even starts (e.g., HERC). Not saying the HERC was going to be good for the game, just saying that Blizzard wanted something for Terran at Barracks-tech, and what we got was the KD8 charge.
... Which has added little to no depth to the game, with the possible exception of infuriating Reaper cheeses
|
On December 22 2015 01:50 EatingBomber wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 01:32 TimeSpiral wrote:On December 22 2015 01:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On December 22 2015 00:54 Ghanburighan wrote:On December 22 2015 00:24 Big J wrote:On December 21 2015 23:57 Ghanburighan wrote:
I've been following the discussion in this thread halfheartedly as what seems to be ignored the amount of flux in the scene. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but we've seen fewer high level games of LotV than for example in the beginning of HotS. The game wasn't played as extensively at high level over the beta, and at the same time the entire economy was revamped, requiring a great deal more figuring out before we can decide the state of the game. Recall the 2010 meta of WoL. Even if we account for nerfs and different maps, I don't think the game was sufficiently figured out to properly assess balance then. So I'd advise caution with trying to figure out the state of balance now. And even though we should discuss and analyze results and mechanics thoroughly, I would avoid making actual judgments based on a few haphazard tournaments this early in the game's life span. The meta is still developing. I fully agree with your analysis and balance conclusion(s) for the longrun, but I have arguments in favor of patching now (and then in 2010): 1) We don't know how the balance will ultimately look like is an argument that swings both ways. So we might as well try to balance for the moment, which on average should have a better expectation than waiting anyways. The more a designer knows about the game, the better they can target solutions. Therefore any change made to the game after obvservations should on average yield an improvement to the somewhat arbitrary 1.0 state. 2) The meta is still unstable, targeting problems now before they become an accepted dynamic under the smokescreen of asymmetric design is still much easier to communicate than pseudo-removing the swarm host 2-years after release. 3) Players play the game now. It isn't very helpful for the popularity of the game if current problems are left untouched beyond a players exit from the playerbase. But we all know blizzard never reverses a patch. So whatever we're advocating to be changed now will be changed forever. That is not completely true. I can remember blizzard going back on a few of their patches but I can not quite remember which one it was. There is also the case of changing a unit completely to a third option instead of going back to the first one. Not to mention their inclination to completely remove units from Terran before the beta even starts (e.g., HERC). Not saying the HERC was going to be good for the game, just saying that Blizzard wanted something for Terran at Barracks-tech, and what we got was the KD8 charge. ... Which has added little to no depth to the game, with the possible exception of infuriating Reaper cheeses
*shrugs*
It's unfortunate that we didn't get a more rounded Barracks unit or ability, that would help in the mid or late game. But, having a super-duper early game strategy that is mega all-in (that everyone eventually learns how to stop easily) that has the potential to snowball the game has always been a Terran thing in SC2. 5-rax reaper (WoL), proxy 2-rax (HotS), and now 3-rax reaper (LotV).
It's just another cheese, with extremely high micro requirements. Hardly as infuriating as many of the other cheeses. Terran can hold reaper cheese with 1/1/1 and bunkers (or their own reaper cheese), Zerg can hold with Queen/Speed or Roach at the recreational level. Protoss (until the PO nerf) auto-holds versus all common cheese openers.
|
On December 21 2015 18:52 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 18:25 A_needle_jog wrote:I hope all terrans take a look at MMA play in homestory cup. He easy wins against good zerg players. I said all along. Less whine more play and that is why MMA is winning  GG MMA. I hope terrans learn now. Still need adept nerf ! When Mvp won that IEM against foreigners it also meant that terran isn't UP and people needed to learn to play...
When MVP played, T was op tho. :p
|
On December 22 2015 00:54 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 00:24 Big J wrote:On December 21 2015 23:57 Ghanburighan wrote:
I've been following the discussion in this thread halfheartedly as what seems to be ignored the amount of flux in the scene. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but we've seen fewer high level games of LotV than for example in the beginning of HotS. The game wasn't played as extensively at high level over the beta, and at the same time the entire economy was revamped, requiring a great deal more figuring out before we can decide the state of the game. Recall the 2010 meta of WoL. Even if we account for nerfs and different maps, I don't think the game was sufficiently figured out to properly assess balance then. So I'd advise caution with trying to figure out the state of balance now. And even though we should discuss and analyze results and mechanics thoroughly, I would avoid making actual judgments based on a few haphazard tournaments this early in the game's life span. The meta is still developing. I fully agree with your analysis and balance conclusion(s) for the longrun, but I have arguments in favor of patching now (and then in 2010): 1) We don't know how the balance will ultimately look like is an argument that swings both ways. So we might as well try to balance for the moment, which on average should have a better expectation than waiting anyways. The more a designer knows about the game, the better they can target solutions. Therefore any change made to the game after obvservations should on average yield an improvement to the somewhat arbitrary 1.0 state. 2) The meta is still unstable, targeting problems now before they become an accepted dynamic under the smokescreen of asymmetric design is still much easier to communicate than pseudo-removing the swarm host 2-years after release. 3) Players play the game now. It isn't very helpful for the popularity of the game if current problems are left untouched beyond a players exit from the playerbase. I'd generally agree, as my statement really only applies towards a judgment of imbalance, rather than any consequent action. So, we might patch only to find out that we were premature in doing so, requiring a roll-back. But we all know blizzard never reverses a patch. So whatever we're advocating to be changed now will be changed forever. That being said, a PO nerf is probably good for the game in the long run regardless of balance for reasons that have been discussed to death. I wouldn't reduce the effectiveness of lings, though, without having very strong reasons for doing so, as lings are interesting units, fragile but fast and high damage if microed well. It would be great if they remained incredibly powerful in certain situations.
Blizzard's (seemingly) arbitrary balance philosophy with hardly any roll-backs is indeed a weakpoint of my thesis. They seem to have no underlying design philosophy for the matchups and go too much by whatever works, i.e. the often critizised "winrate balance".
Overcharge/tech rush instead of actually having to react with more diverse reactions is just one of the "bad dynamics". The Ultralisk/Ghost dynamic is over the top in my opinion, even though I agree with the general outline of forcing Terran into a heavier transition than in HotS when Zerg does make it to certain lategame techs. Nydus worms may be defendable, but is that the type of game anyone is enjoying? The extremely punishing ling/bling peskering ZvZ since the beginning of times. I think LotV could be improved insanely if blizzard would just step down from their position that every change has to introduce fundamental gameplay changes instead of just doing small tweeks that a professional playerbase will understand how to use. It doesn't always have to be -66% damage from marines, -50% from marauders to ultras, they could try with values closer to our experience in which ultras already proved to be useful.
I think zerglings have been incredibly strong since 2011-12. Their problem has never been a lack of strength, but that they are rooted so deep into zerg gameplay that the other races automatically pre-empt them very heavily, which then triggers zerg players to not use them as much in the lategame. (every further expansion being a PF or protected by cannons and only taken once you can defend them against lings)
I can't say I'm against the crackling buff, but I'm against the crackling buff without a nerf to how much they control the map. I think that is what many players that want the BW crackling back forget, the BW crackling wasn't dominating the map as hard as the SC2 zergling. It was matched better with speed-zealots and speed-vultures and slower to begin with I think. So yeah, I think the current crackling is too strong.
Regarding point 3, do you think Flash, Rain, etc retiring is connected to the state of the game?
I mean, obviously they would still be finishing HotS if we hadn't transitioned to LotV yet. And there is certainly a parallel universe in which LotV was so awesome that they would never consider retiring. But in the named cases, I don't think the actual balance or design state of the game are the deciding reasons as they stated in interviews. However, it does obviously play into a players decision for whether he wants to keep on trying. For example Nerchio has been outspoken about disliking HotS, which is why he went semi-pro but is currently playing fulltime in LotV. Stephano retired with the words "this game is not for me anymore" and has also openly stated his dislike for certain metagames or matchups (e.g. ZvZ ling/bling wars in LotV).
I think there is a bit of a correlation between retiring Terran players and the amount of Mech play they use. Not everyone likes to play the game just because it is fair, players want to have their own pet styles and win with what they believe is fun. MC's famous article about the state of TvZ in 2013 was openly critizising how dull it was to play as Zerg against bio/mine with no real alternatives or transitions.
So yeah, in conclusion I think the game would have a much bigger player retention - on professional and casual level - if the patches and expansions would actually try to cater to the existing playstyles and getting less-liked matchups en par with the posterboys, instead of going with "whatever works" and "this unit/ability looks so exciting; we are curious how it will be used".
|
On December 22 2015 02:11 Big J wrote:
I think zerglings have been incredibly strong since 2011-12. Their problem has never been a lack of strength, but that they are rooted so deep into zerg gameplay that the other races automatically pre-empt them very heavily, which then triggers zerg players to not use them as much in the lategame. (every further expansion being a PF or protected by cannons and only taken once you can defend them against lings)
I can't say I'm against the crackling buff, but I'm against the crackling buff without a nerf to how much they control the map. I think that is what many players that want the BW crackling back forget, the BW crackling wasn't dominating the map as hard as the SC2 zergling. It was matched better with speed-zealots and speed-vultures and slower to begin with I think. So yeah, I think the current crackling is too strong.
Holy shit, this SO MUCH.
Literally everything in the game has to be balanced around the speed and strength of the Zergling. Ramps, map design, expand timings, etc.
BW Zergling was not nearly this fast and you couldn't produce them in these insane amounts (like 80 at a time...).
Terrans complain that every build needs to be "Oracle proof" but actually, EVERY build needs to be Zergling proof. Yes you can say that about any unit, but it's especially true of Zerglings because of their speed. You don't just need the right units to fight them... you need to sim city against them, and you have to know how many there are on the map because retreating against them is not possible.
|
On December 22 2015 02:03 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 01:50 EatingBomber wrote:On December 22 2015 01:32 TimeSpiral wrote:On December 22 2015 01:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On December 22 2015 00:54 Ghanburighan wrote:On December 22 2015 00:24 Big J wrote:On December 21 2015 23:57 Ghanburighan wrote:
I've been following the discussion in this thread halfheartedly as what seems to be ignored the amount of flux in the scene. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but we've seen fewer high level games of LotV than for example in the beginning of HotS. The game wasn't played as extensively at high level over the beta, and at the same time the entire economy was revamped, requiring a great deal more figuring out before we can decide the state of the game. Recall the 2010 meta of WoL. Even if we account for nerfs and different maps, I don't think the game was sufficiently figured out to properly assess balance then. So I'd advise caution with trying to figure out the state of balance now. And even though we should discuss and analyze results and mechanics thoroughly, I would avoid making actual judgments based on a few haphazard tournaments this early in the game's life span. The meta is still developing. I fully agree with your analysis and balance conclusion(s) for the longrun, but I have arguments in favor of patching now (and then in 2010): 1) We don't know how the balance will ultimately look like is an argument that swings both ways. So we might as well try to balance for the moment, which on average should have a better expectation than waiting anyways. The more a designer knows about the game, the better they can target solutions. Therefore any change made to the game after obvservations should on average yield an improvement to the somewhat arbitrary 1.0 state. 2) The meta is still unstable, targeting problems now before they become an accepted dynamic under the smokescreen of asymmetric design is still much easier to communicate than pseudo-removing the swarm host 2-years after release. 3) Players play the game now. It isn't very helpful for the popularity of the game if current problems are left untouched beyond a players exit from the playerbase. But we all know blizzard never reverses a patch. So whatever we're advocating to be changed now will be changed forever. That is not completely true. I can remember blizzard going back on a few of their patches but I can not quite remember which one it was. There is also the case of changing a unit completely to a third option instead of going back to the first one. Not to mention their inclination to completely remove units from Terran before the beta even starts (e.g., HERC). Not saying the HERC was going to be good for the game, just saying that Blizzard wanted something for Terran at Barracks-tech, and what we got was the KD8 charge. ... Which has added little to no depth to the game, with the possible exception of infuriating Reaper cheeses *shrugs*It's unfortunate that we didn't get a more rounded Barracks unit or ability, that would help in the mid or late game. But, having a super-duper early game strategy that is mega all-in (that everyone eventually learns how to stop easily) that has the potential to snowball the game has always been a Terran thing in SC2. 5-rax reaper (WoL), proxy 2-rax (HotS), and now 3-rax reaper (LotV). It's just another cheese, with extremely high micro requirements. Hardly as infuriating as many of the other cheeses. Terran can hold reaper cheese with 1/1/1 and bunkers (or their own reaper cheese), Zerg can hold with Queen/Speed or Roach at the recreational level. Protoss (until the PO nerf) auto-holds versus all common cheese openers.
To be fair, Terran Barracks units are already extremely-well rounded. The Marine itself is already a powerful general unit that provides good anti-air fire, while the Marauder functions as a heavy assault anti-armored unit, with the Ghost functioning as the anti-spellcaster and now the anti-large unit. There is even a dedicated scouting tool...
|
On December 22 2015 02:25 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 02:11 Big J wrote:
I think zerglings have been incredibly strong since 2011-12. Their problem has never been a lack of strength, but that they are rooted so deep into zerg gameplay that the other races automatically pre-empt them very heavily, which then triggers zerg players to not use them as much in the lategame. (every further expansion being a PF or protected by cannons and only taken once you can defend them against lings)
I can't say I'm against the crackling buff, but I'm against the crackling buff without a nerf to how much they control the map. I think that is what many players that want the BW crackling back forget, the BW crackling wasn't dominating the map as hard as the SC2 zergling. It was matched better with speed-zealots and speed-vultures and slower to begin with I think. So yeah, I think the current crackling is too strong. Holy shit, this SO MUCH. Literally everything in the game has to be balanced around the speed and strength of the Zergling. Ramps, map design, expand timings, etc. BW Zergling was not nearly this fast and you couldn't produce them in these insane amounts (like 80 at a time...).
Lol, beyond their ability to slaughter defenceless workers and seize map control without opposition, I doubt they are that good. They are only frustrating in the sense that one
needs to be very meticulous when playing against them.
Besides, in HotS almost no Zerg used them extensively in standard play. Most used Roach-Hydralisk buildss, with an eye towards pre-nerf SH.
Also, Zerglings aren't the same as Oracles - it is possible to deal with Zerglings at almost every stage of the game with almost any build, Zerglings are a certainty in any vZ matchup, and last of all, Zerglings rarely deal game-ending damage even if they get into your base, unless a massive mistake is made, such as every single unit being out of position.
EDIT: added new content
|
On December 22 2015 02:33 EatingBomber wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 02:25 DinoMight wrote:On December 22 2015 02:11 Big J wrote:
I think zerglings have been incredibly strong since 2011-12. Their problem has never been a lack of strength, but that they are rooted so deep into zerg gameplay that the other races automatically pre-empt them very heavily, which then triggers zerg players to not use them as much in the lategame. (every further expansion being a PF or protected by cannons and only taken once you can defend them against lings)
I can't say I'm against the crackling buff, but I'm against the crackling buff without a nerf to how much they control the map. I think that is what many players that want the BW crackling back forget, the BW crackling wasn't dominating the map as hard as the SC2 zergling. It was matched better with speed-zealots and speed-vultures and slower to begin with I think. So yeah, I think the current crackling is too strong. Holy shit, this SO MUCH. Literally everything in the game has to be balanced around the speed and strength of the Zergling. Ramps, map design, expand timings, etc. BW Zergling was not nearly this fast and you couldn't produce them in these insane amounts (like 80 at a time...). Lol, beyond their ability to slaughter defenceless workers and seize map control without opposition, I doubt they are that good. They are only frustrating in the sense that one needs to be very meticulous when playing against them. Besides, in HotS almost no Zerg used them extensively in standard play. Most used Roach-Hydralisk
Yes, but no matter what you did you had to account for them. Can't just have a base with observers around it to know if it's being attacked. Zerglings are too fast. Base needs to be walled off or cannoned or whatever. Positioning is just irrelevant against that speed.
|
On December 22 2015 02:04 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 18:52 Charoisaur wrote:On December 21 2015 18:25 A_needle_jog wrote:I hope all terrans take a look at MMA play in homestory cup. He easy wins against good zerg players. I said all along. Less whine more play and that is why MMA is winning GG MMA. I hope terrans learn now. Still need adept nerf ! When Mvp won that IEM against foreigners it also meant that terran isn't UP and people needed to learn to play... When MVP played, T was op tho. :p
He won his only IEM during broodlord/infestor era.
|
On December 22 2015 02:33 EatingBomber wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 02:25 DinoMight wrote:On December 22 2015 02:11 Big J wrote:
I think zerglings have been incredibly strong since 2011-12. Their problem has never been a lack of strength, but that they are rooted so deep into zerg gameplay that the other races automatically pre-empt them very heavily, which then triggers zerg players to not use them as much in the lategame. (every further expansion being a PF or protected by cannons and only taken once you can defend them against lings)
I can't say I'm against the crackling buff, but I'm against the crackling buff without a nerf to how much they control the map. I think that is what many players that want the BW crackling back forget, the BW crackling wasn't dominating the map as hard as the SC2 zergling. It was matched better with speed-zealots and speed-vultures and slower to begin with I think. So yeah, I think the current crackling is too strong. Holy shit, this SO MUCH. Literally everything in the game has to be balanced around the speed and strength of the Zergling. Ramps, map design, expand timings, etc. BW Zergling was not nearly this fast and you couldn't produce them in these insane amounts (like 80 at a time...). Lol, beyond their ability to slaughter defenceless workers and seize map control without opposition, I doubt they are that good. They are only frustrating in the sense that one needs to be very meticulous when playing against them. Besides, in HotS almost no Zerg used them extensively in standard play in ZvP. Most used Roach-Hydralisk buildss, with an eye towards pre-nerf SH. Also, Zerglings aren't the same as Oracles - it is possible to deal with Zerglings at almost every stage of the game with almost any build, Zerglings are a certainty in any vZ matchup, and last of all, Zerglings rarely deal game-ending damage even if they get into your base, unless a massive mistake is made, such as every single unit being out of position Added new content
Oops, accidentally added quoted. Mods, can you delete this?
|
MMA would get stomped on by most Korean zergs in a best of 5 or 7 no doubt.
|
On December 22 2015 02:40 HugoBallzak wrote:
MMA would get stomped on by most Korean zergs in a best of 5 or 7 no doubt.
Yes. Better players of any race could and probably would beat him. Is there some deeper meaning i´m missing?
|
On December 22 2015 02:27 EatingBomber wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 02:03 TimeSpiral wrote:On December 22 2015 01:50 EatingBomber wrote:On December 22 2015 01:32 TimeSpiral wrote:On December 22 2015 01:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On December 22 2015 00:54 Ghanburighan wrote:On December 22 2015 00:24 Big J wrote:On December 21 2015 23:57 Ghanburighan wrote:
I've been following the discussion in this thread halfheartedly as what seems to be ignored the amount of flux in the scene. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but we've seen fewer high level games of LotV than for example in the beginning of HotS. The game wasn't played as extensively at high level over the beta, and at the same time the entire economy was revamped, requiring a great deal more figuring out before we can decide the state of the game. Recall the 2010 meta of WoL. Even if we account for nerfs and different maps, I don't think the game was sufficiently figured out to properly assess balance then. So I'd advise caution with trying to figure out the state of balance now. And even though we should discuss and analyze results and mechanics thoroughly, I would avoid making actual judgments based on a few haphazard tournaments this early in the game's life span. The meta is still developing. I fully agree with your analysis and balance conclusion(s) for the longrun, but I have arguments in favor of patching now (and then in 2010): 1) We don't know how the balance will ultimately look like is an argument that swings both ways. So we might as well try to balance for the moment, which on average should have a better expectation than waiting anyways. The more a designer knows about the game, the better they can target solutions. Therefore any change made to the game after obvservations should on average yield an improvement to the somewhat arbitrary 1.0 state. 2) The meta is still unstable, targeting problems now before they become an accepted dynamic under the smokescreen of asymmetric design is still much easier to communicate than pseudo-removing the swarm host 2-years after release. 3) Players play the game now. It isn't very helpful for the popularity of the game if current problems are left untouched beyond a players exit from the playerbase. But we all know blizzard never reverses a patch. So whatever we're advocating to be changed now will be changed forever. That is not completely true. I can remember blizzard going back on a few of their patches but I can not quite remember which one it was. There is also the case of changing a unit completely to a third option instead of going back to the first one. Not to mention their inclination to completely remove units from Terran before the beta even starts (e.g., HERC). Not saying the HERC was going to be good for the game, just saying that Blizzard wanted something for Terran at Barracks-tech, and what we got was the KD8 charge. ... Which has added little to no depth to the game, with the possible exception of infuriating Reaper cheeses *shrugs*It's unfortunate that we didn't get a more rounded Barracks unit or ability, that would help in the mid or late game. But, having a super-duper early game strategy that is mega all-in (that everyone eventually learns how to stop easily) that has the potential to snowball the game has always been a Terran thing in SC2. 5-rax reaper (WoL), proxy 2-rax (HotS), and now 3-rax reaper (LotV). It's just another cheese, with extremely high micro requirements. Hardly as infuriating as many of the other cheeses. Terran can hold reaper cheese with 1/1/1 and bunkers (or their own reaper cheese), Zerg can hold with Queen/Speed or Roach at the recreational level. Protoss (until the PO nerf) auto-holds versus all common cheese openers. To be fair, Terran Barracks units are already extremely-well rounded. The Marine itself is already a powerful general unit that provides good anti-air fire, while the Marauder functions as a heavy assault anti-armored unit, with the Ghost functioning as the anti-spellcaster and now the anti-large unit. There is even a dedicated scouting tool...
Oh, maybe you missed this bit. Blizzard specifically said they wanted to see something new at Barracks. LotV was released for cool new balance stuff, it was released as a cool new game! So of course they want to add stuff (then balance it). So yeah. Where is our cool new barracks unit/ability?
Zerg got a second hatch-tech ranged spellcaster (Ravager), and Protoss, at gateway tech, got a fast tanky ranged blink zealot with an invulnerable teleportation ability (with a passive +DPS upgrade). Sure, the Barracks is clearly a good and rounded tech path (if you consider the Starport to be Barracks tech, because, try playing Barracks with a Starport*).
*Obviously I know what people mean when they say Barracks play. But let's just not forget that Barracks play requires a Starport.
|
On December 22 2015 02:44 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 02:27 EatingBomber wrote:On December 22 2015 02:03 TimeSpiral wrote:On December 22 2015 01:50 EatingBomber wrote:On December 22 2015 01:32 TimeSpiral wrote:On December 22 2015 01:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On December 22 2015 00:54 Ghanburighan wrote:On December 22 2015 00:24 Big J wrote:On December 21 2015 23:57 Ghanburighan wrote:
I've been following the discussion in this thread halfheartedly as what seems to be ignored the amount of flux in the scene. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but we've seen fewer high level games of LotV than for example in the beginning of HotS. The game wasn't played as extensively at high level over the beta, and at the same time the entire economy was revamped, requiring a great deal more figuring out before we can decide the state of the game. Recall the 2010 meta of WoL. Even if we account for nerfs and different maps, I don't think the game was sufficiently figured out to properly assess balance then. So I'd advise caution with trying to figure out the state of balance now. And even though we should discuss and analyze results and mechanics thoroughly, I would avoid making actual judgments based on a few haphazard tournaments this early in the game's life span. The meta is still developing. I fully agree with your analysis and balance conclusion(s) for the longrun, but I have arguments in favor of patching now (and then in 2010): 1) We don't know how the balance will ultimately look like is an argument that swings both ways. So we might as well try to balance for the moment, which on average should have a better expectation than waiting anyways. The more a designer knows about the game, the better they can target solutions. Therefore any change made to the game after obvservations should on average yield an improvement to the somewhat arbitrary 1.0 state. 2) The meta is still unstable, targeting problems now before they become an accepted dynamic under the smokescreen of asymmetric design is still much easier to communicate than pseudo-removing the swarm host 2-years after release. 3) Players play the game now. It isn't very helpful for the popularity of the game if current problems are left untouched beyond a players exit from the playerbase. But we all know blizzard never reverses a patch. So whatever we're advocating to be changed now will be changed forever. That is not completely true. I can remember blizzard going back on a few of their patches but I can not quite remember which one it was. There is also the case of changing a unit completely to a third option instead of going back to the first one. Not to mention their inclination to completely remove units from Terran before the beta even starts (e.g., HERC). Not saying the HERC was going to be good for the game, just saying that Blizzard wanted something for Terran at Barracks-tech, and what we got was the KD8 charge. ... Which has added little to no depth to the game, with the possible exception of infuriating Reaper cheeses *shrugs*It's unfortunate that we didn't get a more rounded Barracks unit or ability, that would help in the mid or late game. But, having a super-duper early game strategy that is mega all-in (that everyone eventually learns how to stop easily) that has the potential to snowball the game has always been a Terran thing in SC2. 5-rax reaper (WoL), proxy 2-rax (HotS), and now 3-rax reaper (LotV). It's just another cheese, with extremely high micro requirements. Hardly as infuriating as many of the other cheeses. Terran can hold reaper cheese with 1/1/1 and bunkers (or their own reaper cheese), Zerg can hold with Queen/Speed or Roach at the recreational level. Protoss (until the PO nerf) auto-holds versus all common cheese openers. To be fair, Terran Barracks units are already extremely-well rounded. The Marine itself is already a powerful general unit that provides good anti-air fire, while the Marauder functions as a heavy assault anti-armored unit, with the Ghost functioning as the anti-spellcaster and now the anti-large unit. There is even a dedicated scouting tool... Oh, maybe you missed this bit. Blizzard specifically said they wanted to see something new at Barracks. LotV was released for cool new balance stuff, it was released as a cool new game! So of course they want to add stuff (then balance it). So yeah. Where is our cool new barracks unit/ability? Zerg got a second hatch-tech ranged spellcaster (Ravager), and Protoss, at gateway tech, got a fast tanky ranged blink zealot with an invulnerable teleportation ability (with a passive +DPS upgrade). Sure, the Barracks is clearly a good and rounded tech path (if you consider the Starport to be Barracks tech, because, try playing Barracks with a Starport*). *Obviously I know what people mean when they say Barracks play. But let's just not forget that Barracks play requires a Starport.
Why are you holding Blizzard to their promises? They promised us viable Terran mechanical play in Heart of the Swarm - what did we get? The horror of mass Raven-Battlecruiser turtling, which is not mech, but rather a completely broken playstyle based around abusing PDD.
|
On December 22 2015 02:44 TimeSpiral wrote:
Zerg got a second hatch-tech ranged spellcaster (Ravager), and Protoss, at gateway tech, got a fast tanky ranged blink zealot with an invulnerable teleportation ability (with a passive +DPS upgrade).
Lol.
To be fair the Adept itself is not that fast.
|
On December 21 2015 20:29 HellHound wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 19:44 A_needle_jog wrote:It basically means that you are the creator of your own luck That saying is popular everywhere :D Too bad most people deny it as loud as they can.
Considering it is blatantly untrue, it seems pretty reasonable to deny it.
|
On December 22 2015 03:19 Bohemond wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 20:29 HellHound wrote:On December 21 2015 19:44 A_needle_jog wrote:It basically means that you are the creator of your own luck That saying is popular everywhere :D Too bad most people deny it as loud as they can. Considering it is blatantly untrue, it seems pretty reasonable to deny it.
Sorry don't understand 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
