|
On August 02 2013 18:35 Big J wrote:
roaches had pretty insane underground regeneration back then. +/- 50/50 on burrow won't bring that back.
whats wrong with bringing it back (i mean regeneration)?
EDIT: and make it less insane. Like 1 hp per 2 sec.
|
burrow is in an awkward position imo, similar to overlord speed upgrade.
You could be getting an earlier lair with the gas which is much more important or you will fall behind on upgrades etc.
Burrow in mid game doesn't shine so much when you are under full aggression from the terran and you need the gas for upgrades and banelings and mutas.
burrowing the drones is situational because you could just run the drones away and wait for the ling muta to clean up. It is mostly used only as a last resort if your army is not big enough to deal with an incoming push and drop at the same time.
blocking expo is annoying but you could achieve the same with overlord creep as well
the most useful function is probably burrowing the lings when you are doing harassment which is rare nowadays as terran have a lot of map control
|
On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it?
Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game.
I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game.
|
On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings.
why do you even think that you can talk for other people? Isn't it rather that you know burrow isn't posing any thread for you terrans and you like to keep it this way?
I strongly support to consider this little change and try it out to see what happens in order to make burrow a more viable option in early game what it obviously is not now! Right now it is much more reliable to morph 4 more banelings instead of hoping for burrow luck for the most players. Early burrow could in fact force the terran to move out more carefully and therefore slow down terran basic unit macro attacks that are too hard to defend right now.
The idea of changing burrow costs again is not bad.
|
On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game.
Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference.
After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself.
Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with each day.
|
On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day.
Your best argument for 50 gas less is that it's not fucking broken by a mile. Not good enough. Those 50gas is measured in game time, and the amount of roaches at your door.
Leaving the game for a long while? You mean like in BW... Yeah, huge mistake... Or not. The mistake was a stupid half-assed experimental buff (remember that they tested one thing and did another), not leaving the game for ages. Leaving the game after the mistake only made the mistake worse.
If it's balanced, let it be. The meta will develop and new styles can arise on their own. And I say this despite the fact that it's silly as anything to play T these days. Against P you're doing the same thing every game like a robot, hoping to get lucky in the early game with scouting and all-inning before storm is out. There's only one thing to do in TvZ (biomine) because Blizz nerfed mech to the ground through the viper, SH and making airtoss strong. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there.
|
On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there.
Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore.
|
On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore.
Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way.
|
IF, i will start this post with an if, blizzard would agree with buffing zerg, what would the best way to do it?
I feel zerg lacks the most of anti-air. But also the AoE could use some improvement.
These are my thoughts what could work, with pros and cons, choose one:
Roaches: Maybe give them smth like +damage against biological. So that roach/hydra is viable against terran, not only as a timing. downside would be that ling/infestor would be less seen in zvz.
Queen: more air dps/range, so they can deal better with drops by them self. and you cant be punished for moving out with your army with one single drop. also they would deal better with the new void ray, so you dont need to go hydra against stargate and sit on light army when robo switch hits.
Baneling: increase splah radius or give them more movementspeed with upgrade. so you have the chance to get better connects to marines. splash radius would affect zvz a lot.
Hydra: regeneration while burrowed would give them a slight buff and maybe we would see burrowtech more often.
Muta/spire: i feel like even if you cut eco for fast spire tech muta still come a bit late to deal enough damage. especially against protoss when they opt to go stargate. maybe spire building time could be reduced. also i think phoenix is way to strong against muta. i still dont understand why they have more speed AND range than muta.
Infestor: give fungal a higher range that you have a chance to keep your infestor alive when throwing a fungal. or increase their movement speed. but i think blizzard wont never ever ever buff infestor again.
Viper: same as infestor. higher speed or range would keep them alive more often. maybe faster consume would help after remax.
Ultra: maybe it is worth a thought to make them tier 2 but with +2armor upgrade at tier3. it would help against MMMM and maybe the zvz meta would shift again, or at least, more techswitches. smth like roach into muta against ling/ultra.
zvp could become really hard if the protoss goes colossi too early without a good amount of immortals. also it is a big nerf to forcefields if ultra hit too early.
another idea is to reduce the CD on creeptumors so terran has to drop more scans instead of mules to fight back creep. or dont allow widow mine to burrow on creep. but this would be the death for widow mine drops.
sry for my english. i didnt use it for a while. only for BM 
|
On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way.
your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything.
Am I getting it right?
|
On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right?
You got the skeleton of it right, so that's better than I expected. But, honestly, do you want a medal for straw-maning my arguments instead of replying to the full post which I took the time to write out?
Edit: you can actually read the core of my arguments in the OP of this thread. Might be useful.
|
Austria24422 Posts
On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right?
As long as the game is still being figured out, that is the smart way to go about things, yes.
|
On August 02 2013 19:01 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. why do you even think that you can talk for other people? Isn't it rather that you know burrow isn't posing any thread for you terrans and you like to keep it this way? I strongly support to consider this little change and try it out to see what happens in order to make burrow a more viable option in early game what it obviously is not now! Right now it is much more reliable to morph 4 more banelings instead of hoping for burrow luck for the most players. Early burrow could in fact force the terran to move out more carefully and therefore slow down terran basic unit macro attacks that are too hard to defend right now. The idea of changing burrow costs again is not bad.
Burrow is completely viable and the reason for it not being used I dare to say is not 'huge investment' but rather players not trying it out. Check out TLO, he does use it and it won him games. Also I don't believe burrow is that important in the earlier stages, but a nice thing to have in midgame.
In addition to that, I don't speak for others but simply pointed out that others here do not think that change would be justified. Furthermore, you are the last person to talk speaking of Terran as completely imbalanced and 8 marine drops winning a game.
|
Northern Ireland27206 Posts
On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right?
If I heard an argument about why changing burrow would:
1. Change the game and allow more dynamic strats
2. What would change and how.
3. Why it wouldn't be broken
Then I'd have more sympathy with the idea. As it is changing stuff without due consideration is a bit silly to me.
|
On August 02 2013 19:36 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? You got the skeleton of it right, so that's better than I expected. But, honestly, do you want a medal for straw-maning my arguments instead of replying to the full post which I took the time to write out? Edit: you can actually read the core of my arguments in the OP of this thread. Might be useful.
On August 02 2013 19:37 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? As long as the game is still being figured out, that is the smart way to go about things, yes.
So you both think this thread is unnecessary?
|
On August 02 2013 19:44 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:
[quote]
Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? You got the skeleton of it right, so that's better than I expected. But, honestly, do you want a medal for straw-maning my arguments instead of replying to the full post which I took the time to write out? Edit: you can actually read the core of my arguments in the OP of this thread. Might be useful. Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:37 DarkLordOlli wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:
[quote]
Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? As long as the game is still being figured out, that is the smart way to go about things, yes. So you both think this thread is unnecessary?
How could you possibly think that after reading what we have written?
|
On August 02 2013 19:40 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? If I heard an argument about why changing burrow would: 1. Change the game and allow more dynamic strats 2. What would change and how. 3. Why it wouldn't be broken Then I'd have more sympathy with the idea. As it is changing stuff without due consideration is a bit silly to me.
I think its very apparent that we want burrow to be used more often in order to make the game more diverse and fun, same with nydus, which was suggested pages ago. I don't think it requires any further explanation.
|
On August 02 2013 18:47 ETisME wrote:
burrow is in an awkward position imo, similar to overlord speed upgrade.
You could be getting an earlier lair with the gas which is much more important or you will fall behind on upgrades etc.
Burrow in mid game doesn't shine so much when you are under full aggression from the terran and you need the gas for upgrades and banelings and mutas.
burrowing the drones is situational because you could just run the drones away and wait for the ling muta to clean up. It is mostly used only as a last resort if your army is not big enough to deal with an incoming push and drop at the same time.
blocking expo is annoying but you could achieve the same with overlord creep as well
the most useful function is probably burrowing the lings when you are doing harassment which is rare nowadays as terran have a lot of map control
I agree, anything less than 100/100 and base camping via burrowed ling or roach will be hugely broken, force a Terran to scan just to kill one ling is a huge loss, 25m ling (& 100/100 of research) to trade 270 opportunity cost MULE is a great trade, force Spending on early pylon & cannon, build a spore crawler, ouch.
The least affected would be Z since no EC requirement and spore crawlers can move, it will still be annoying from the 4th base and up though.
That being said, OL creep is slow and expensive since it's by Lair tech can a Z puke creep and by that time most Z or T would have AA by then.
But I agree with Sandarama, make it cheaper for a while and let shit fly.
|
On August 02 2013 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:44 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:
[quote]
Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun.
e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? You got the skeleton of it right, so that's better than I expected. But, honestly, do you want a medal for straw-maning my arguments instead of replying to the full post which I took the time to write out? Edit: you can actually read the core of my arguments in the OP of this thread. Might be useful. On August 02 2013 19:37 DarkLordOlli wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:
[quote]
Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun.
e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? As long as the game is still being figured out, that is the smart way to go about things, yes. So you both think this thread is unnecessary? How could you possibly think that after reading what we have written?
Ok, is there something in your mind you'd want to change in SC2?
|
On August 02 2013 19:39 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:01 LSN wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. why do you even think that you can talk for other people? Isn't it rather that you know burrow isn't posing any thread for you terrans and you like to keep it this way? I strongly support to consider this little change and try it out to see what happens in order to make burrow a more viable option in early game what it obviously is not now! Right now it is much more reliable to morph 4 more banelings instead of hoping for burrow luck for the most players. Early burrow could in fact force the terran to move out more carefully and therefore slow down terran basic unit macro attacks that are too hard to defend right now. The idea of changing burrow costs again is not bad. Burrow is completely viable and the reason for it not being used I dare to say is not 'huge investment' but rather players not trying it out. Check out TLO, he does use it and it won him games. Also I don't believe burrow is that important in the earlier stages, but a nice thing to have in midgame. In addition to that, I don't speak for others but simply pointed out that others here do not think that change would be justified. Furthermore, you are the last person to talk speaking of Terran as completely imbalanced and 8 marine drops winning a game.
you obviously cannot read, neither what I wrote nor gameplay.
The cost of burrow are not only the 100/100 but also the units that you split apart from your forces to sit around burrowed somewhere and hope that someone walks over it. It is not viable! Why? Because zergs cannot afford extra units that are sitting apart anywhere on the map without any certainty that they will get any use. Because if terran forces walk just 2cm aside of them these units wont have any use and will be missing in the main forces for drop/push defense. I guess you didn't know this, but I am glad to explain a GM player the game :-/
Secondly, I said the exactly opposite about terran being op. I said certain mechanics are op, not the whole race and stated this many times. But another time reading seems not to be your strength but anyway please stop semi quoting wrong things about me.
Furthermore I strongly claim YOU are one heavily biased terran guy who enjoys easy life in TvZ that is at a similar state right now as in the beginning of WOL. You are one of these who can not even admit that a race/matchup design is broken where one party (terran) has banked 2-5k gas after 20-30 minutes of play. If you don't want to admit it just watch your own replays maybe. Or do you have any secret use for gas that others dont know after being on 3 base having upgrades going and tech being built? I guess not lol.
Edit: TLO dreamhack ZvP burrow was a complete all-in. If Protoss did anything else what he did it woul have been a 100% loss for TLO. So you suggest zergs to use more/other all-ins against terran early/midgame op mechanics? oO
This is btw why TLO play is alot of coinflipping and he never makes it to the very top. If everything works like expected for him its quite good, if anything differs from that he is falling apart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1432
273
164
53
636
518
156
4482
3482
455
127
EPT
