EPTWhile i agree with Blizzards stand that harass should be very powerful i think it should take a lot of skill to pull it off. At this time, when a Hellbat drop or a doom drop or an Oracle come in and do tons of dmg, the focus seems to be on the units themselves and how they are balanced rather then how good the player doing the harass is. This will get very boring to watch after the "new unit" feeling goes away. Maybe that's when LOTV comes in to the rescue?
Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 505
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
While i agree with Blizzards stand that harass should be very powerful i think it should take a lot of skill to pull it off. At this time, when a Hellbat drop or a doom drop or an Oracle come in and do tons of dmg, the focus seems to be on the units themselves and how they are balanced rather then how good the player doing the harass is. This will get very boring to watch after the "new unit" feeling goes away. Maybe that's when LOTV comes in to the rescue? | ||
|
Rainbow Cuddles
United States486 Posts
On May 31 2013 17:41 Sapphire.lux wrote: I liked Artosisssss point on Meta that you can win games by accident (he was talking about Hellbat drops). That's in all games though. It boils down to how much room do the developers/balance team want to leave in place for player error. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On May 31 2013 20:22 Rainbow Cuddles wrote: That's in all games though. It boils down to how much room do the developers/balance team want to leave in place for player error. I dont think you can win through sheer force of luck in every game and it doesnt make it any better ... there are too many ways to harrass super efficiently in SC2 and you need to be prepared for all of them or lose. In a low economy and low production game like BW you are very rarely hit so hard by a surprise attack while there are lots of ways to harrass your opponent or even switch from "macro mode" to "sudden swell of units and storm the enemy base mode". The ability to be prepared for all of them - which involves scouting, making the right decision and having the economy to be able to do something about it - grows less and less the lower you go on the ladder and that is the problem which Blizzard blatantly ignores. Making the right conclusions of what your opponent is doing is especially hard, because what does a gas first mean ... or how many workers will race X have at minute 5 ... This has become too complicated IMO and SC2 is on the brink of becoming too complex with too many units for each race. | ||
|
Usernameffs
Sweden107 Posts
| ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On May 31 2013 22:06 Rabiator wrote: I dont think you can win through sheer force of luck in every game and it doesnt make it any better ... there are too many ways to harrass super efficiently in SC2 and you need to be prepared for all of them or lose. In a low economy and low production game like BW you are very rarely hit so hard by a surprise attack while there are lots of ways to harrass your opponent or even switch from "macro mode" to "sudden swell of units and storm the enemy base mode". The ability to be prepared for all of them - which involves scouting, making the right decision and having the economy to be able to do something about it - grows less and less the lower you go on the ladder and that is the problem which Blizzard blatantly ignores. Making the right conclusions of what your opponent is doing is especially hard, because what does a gas first mean ... or how many workers will race X have at minute 5 ... This has become too complicated IMO and SC2 is on the brink of becoming too complex with too many units for each race. I think the word you are looking for is "random". Lots of options to be aggressive and almost impossible to accurately predict them. I feel like the game relies to much on builds countering builds, hidden tech, etc things that often end up in BO wins, instead of execution vs. execution. I mean, it's a lot better to see players outplaying their opponents then "outsmarting" them with what are essentially gimmicks. Protoss feels like it was designed to be this way. | ||
|
NightOfTheDead
Lithuania1711 Posts
| ||
|
PanzerElite
540 Posts
| ||
|
ghostnuke1234
164 Posts
On June 01 2013 17:54 PanzerElite wrote: Terran imba? lol zerg wins almost all major tournaments. Maybe people should shut up and spend their time playing instead of qq'ing. Zerg has won the last 6 GSLs or so? I dunno. I stopped counting a long time ago. In HotS, Zerg has won MLG, DH, and GSL. So Zerg has won the 3 premier tournaments in HotS. | ||
|
Daralii
United States16991 Posts
On June 01 2013 18:02 ghostnuke1234 wrote: Zerg has won the last 6 GSLs or so? I dunno. I stopped counting a long time ago. In HotS, Zerg has won MLG, DH, and GSL. So Zerg has won the 3 premier tournaments in HotS. 5 as of now. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
| ||
|
saddaromma
1129 Posts
What if we give a bonus attack against bio to spine crawlers, and remove root/unroot ability. +bonus can be made upgradable. problem it solves: -boring roach-race zvz what it gives: -more positional play, drops and nydus worms. possible problems: -turtle fest -completely shutting down terran drops I think with right tweaks it can be doable. | ||
|
BeyondCtrL
Sweden642 Posts
Since HotS, despite popular outcry of Zerg being UP at start, Zerg has been sweeping all the big tournaments in almost all stages, with no real changes. Do you guys think that since Protoss relies on gimmicky/timing based plays their chances of winning longer series, i.e bo5/bo7, become smaller? | ||
|
Yello
Germany7411 Posts
It's a design-question because I think Hellbat-drops are not overpowered in TvZ or TvP. They are good in TvZ, decent in TvP but not incredibly strong/overpowered (in my opinion). But they totally control TvT. There is not a single TvT, neither high-level nor on my level (masters on EU) without Hellbat-drops. And the game ends there most of time. TvT is all about who gets the better Hellbat drops and it's a lot about getting lucky. I loved the Marine-Tank-Medivac TvT and the occasional Bio vs Mech TvT in WoL, it was my best matchup and the most entertaining to play for me. Lots of decision making involved, it was all about making intelligent moves, basically outsmarting your opponent. I loved to watch it and I loved to play it (think Ryung vs Flash on Whirlwind for example). In HotS however, TvT is a Hellbat-shitfest. Drop Hellbats or lose. Not much of decision making involved, it's just about who gets more lucky. The best thing I can say about TvT in HotS is that the matches are at least short, so I don't have to deal with this for too long. I absolutely hate it. So I wanted to ask if I'm alone with this feeling and if I'm not alone: should Blizzard do something against it? And if so, what could Blizzard do to change TvT without changing the other matchups too much? (The only good idea I could come up with was making Hellbats unable to load into Medivacs. Everything else would basically completely remove Hellbats from the game. If you can't drop them, you can at least still use them as tanking units in Mech and as a supporting unit in Bio-TvP) | ||
|
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
On June 02 2013 17:27 Yello wrote: This is more of a design-question than a balance-question, but I was wondering if I am the only one who thinks Hellbat-drops should be nerfed/removed from the game. It's a design-question because I think Hellbat-drops are not overpowered in TvZ or TvP. They are good in TvZ, decent in TvP but not incredibly strong/overpowered (in my opinion). But they totally control TvT. There is not a single TvT, neither high-level nor on my level (masters on EU) without Hellbat-drops. And the game ends there most of time. TvT is all about who gets the better Hellbat drops and it's a lot about getting lucky. Only 50% of my opponents do hellbat drops (1500 master). I never do them, and if my opponent does them, I win the game. Why? Because it's damn easy to defend against them. Vikings, marines, hellions and good kitingskills and the hellbat dropper just lost 300-100 for 1 scv. | ||
|
aNGryaRchon
United States438 Posts
| ||
|
jacson1253
United States8 Posts
On August 16 2011 07:18 Fig wrote: Yeah I have wondered about this for a long time myself. It seems like all the micro is in the terran's hands during the late game. Which admittedly makes it hard for the terran player, but it is nice to know that they do have the tools to win even engagements if they have strong enough micro. I wish there was more micro potential for toss to even it out. One big example of this is the ghost design. EMP = 10 range Snipe = 10 range Now we look at the HT Storm = 9 range Feedback = 9 range This shows that if both players have the same skills, the terran player will get off an EMP before a storm can occur. But this puts a lot of pressure on the terran to land them. If instead each spell had 9 range, then the toss would be required to micro just as much, making the engagement much more interesting and fair for all levels. I agree to be fair they should have the same range. Shocked they haven't changed that already. | ||
|
jacson1253
United States8 Posts
My opinion for balance changes is for the protoss race. * First I think protoss ground units ( except for probes ) should be able to receive a slight speed bonus if they are in range of a Pylons energy field. My primary thought about this is based on the premise that the Zerg(More Motified then made) and Protoss were both made by the xel'naga. Zerg get a speed bonus while on creep It would seem logical that Protoss would receive a similar passive ability as well. Just a slight speed bonus nothing crazy, would help with base defense with medevac boosters and mutas. Just a thought  * Second It would be nice if the carriers could replenish their interceptors for free instead of paying for them. Zerg players do not have to pay to shoot broodlings or hatch locus. Terran also doesn't have to pay per widow mine shot. Just a thought, would be nice to see more carriers in games however I would think a lot of players do not build them because of having to rebuilding their interceptors over and over again wastes to much minerals. If these seems to be to extreme of changes please lower the amount of minerals cost per interceptor. * Finally bring back the amulet of the high Templar and make the upgrade give the unit a increased max energy instead of adding so much when it is builded. Just a few suggestions, I'm trying to make protoss a OP race I just would like to not see anything else taken away from the race like so many other upgrades have when they could have been modified instead. Also if there is a more official way I could communicate these ideas to blizzard directly please someone let me know. Please I do not want to make this into a WTF he's trying to unbalance the game I just believe considering these changes might make the game more balanced in the end. Thank You for your time.!!! | ||
|
armada[sb]
United States432 Posts
On June 02 2013 22:56 aNGryaRchon wrote: I hope they do something epic for LoTV. Protoss is really getting ignored. Mothership core, phoenix buff, tempest, void ray buff, oracle, hallucination buff. So ignored. | ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On June 02 2013 06:19 BeyondCtrL wrote: Looking at recent and near past results one sees a distinct abscense of Protoss presence in pro level tournaments. Since HotS, despite popular outcry of Zerg being UP at start, Zerg has been sweeping all the big tournaments in almost all stages, with no real changes. Do you guys think that since Protoss relies on gimmicky/timing based plays their chances of winning longer series, i.e bo5/bo7, become smaller? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Protoss get sent out a ton in ProLeague with lots of success? Also to me it seemed like Protoss players started off hot in HoTS (no pun intended) with players like Rain, herO and PartinG leading the charge. And it just reminds me of the beginning of WoL with every Zerg player claiming the game was impossible for them while Fruitdealer clinched the first GSL and Nestea, along with a few other Zergs started dominating shortly after. | ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
On June 03 2013 04:45 jacson1253 wrote: I agree to be fair they should have the same range. Shocked they haven't changed that already. They haven't because there hasn't been anything to warrant it. | ||
| ||
