|
On January 26 2012 04:01 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 03:52 Shockk wrote:
So Protoss is doing well overall, with the exception of tournament wins, which are decided amongst a select group too small for any statistical relevance. And Terran is doing ok-ish at high levels, but struggingly below masters, which is a group representing a huge percentage of the playerbase.
ok-ish? OK-ISH? Terran are doing AWESOME at high level. And seriously, if you can't understand that eSport and pro-level of play is where the balance is relevant... i'm sorry for you. Any balance statement is falacious and utterly stupid if the game is not played at a very high level, simply because it means that the players are only using a small percentage of what is available to them and not efficiently. And, the game feel actually quite balanced lately.
But eSports don't make money for Blizzard, it the little guys that populate the metals and the 2v2s. Are you that enthusiastic about HotS? I'm not and don't feel like I have to have it, to be honest. Also if the declining player numbers according to sc2ranks are at all accurate, it means HotS won't sell well, and the other expansion might even be cancelled imo.
|
On January 26 2012 03:50 Angel_ wrote:
i would like to officially state my opinion that if any other company was in charge of game design i think starcraft 2 would be a more complex game, with a lot more depth of play. i dont think they concretely answered a single question, and they talk about "lower level" without it affecting "higher level", like that's actually something they're really capable of doing without higher level players taking advantage of it.
Good thing it is only your opinion, most companies would take the ez step and mirror the races so everything is the same but named differently and then consider it balanced and never patch it again.
|
On January 26 2012 04:03 Figgy wrote:
I've always thought the fix for pvz mutas was simple. +1 phoenix air attack range, while keep their ability the same range It would only have an effect against Mutas, and make phoenix worth their cost as viable anti air.
Actually it would effect overlord/queen/spore dynamic in PvZ midgame as well. PvT would be affected despite your wishful thinking. Remember phoenix/colossus style that was popular during TSL 3? Even +1 might be too much...maybe .5. Still, there are better ways to design the unit.
|
On January 26 2012 03:53 50bani wrote:
It seems Dayvie does not feel that Protoss has a critical mass problem. It is massively overpowered in late game max vs max situations, where it loses is the midgame. This is why high level Terrans have maintaned good winrates against Protoss for pretty much all time, because they are very active. Low leaguers are too passive and too keen to play deathball vs deathball which is impossible currently.
Against Zerg, it is all about getting over 150 supply. Nothing can happen in the game until Broodlords are out, and even those aren't all too powerful on some of the maps. The fact is that Mutalisks are the only thing you can do to win at ZvP besides Broodlord/Infestor situationally, and it seems Protosses are going to figure out Mutas as well.
I think the game doesn't look so good balance-wise. It is the same problem of the game being imbalanced in different spots in favor of all races, which makes the numbers look good. But the game lacks some playability because the races are not quite equal at all times and we end up in situations where we don't have a chance to win any more despite supply, economy, or units lost looking equal.
you make some good points, but i dont know why people believe in this myth that a game of which consists of totally different fractions(terran/zerg/protoss) can be equal at every level and every stage of the game. Not even broodwar can say " o hey it requires equal amount of difficulty to beat certain strategys". The fact is, it will never be possible and even if it comes near to that , it still would be a matter of opinion on what is harder to execute compared to defending it.
Do you think terran in broodwar has to try harder for their wins? i definately would say so , Idra in his broodwar days is famous for QQ'in about how weak terran is in broodwar(his race). However what does flash have to say about all of this? BAD NOOB IS BAD i'd presume.
Just deal with it and find a way.
|
On January 26 2012 03:52 Shockk wrote:
So Protoss is doing well overall, with the exception of tournament wins, which are decided amongst a select group too small for any statistical relevance. And Terran is doing ok-ish at high levels, but struggingly below masters, which is a group representing a huge percentage of the playerbase.
And they're considering buffing protoss overall, but Ghosts are fine and maybe they'll screw around a bit with the Hellions, both of which are units that have the highest effect with great control but get destroyed quickly by players lacking the proper micro (i.e. the huge parts of sub-masters players that have issues in TvZ and TvP).
By no means do I want to complain about balance; I realize that I'm in no position to properly judge it anyway. But I find it curious that Blizzard constantly needs to appease the "pro" figureheads with comments like these, while the masses get vague promises about maybe fooling around with this or that.
And they should fix the game's horrible battle.net interface before they tinker with balance issues. I bet it'd take a fraction of the time to polish this game's menu to the level of SC/BW and WC3 than it'd take for all the fine-tuning the majority won't even notice.
The thing about that is it is impossible to balance for higher and lower levels. I don't think they should balance for lower levels.
I mean look at BW. The majority of people in BW was like D level which was like masters and lower in SC2 but nobody said anything about the game is too hard. TvP was hard as hell in the lower levels but people just aimed to get better, not complain about the game being too hard.
|
On January 26 2012 04:09 50bani wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 04:01 Xalorian wrote:On January 26 2012 03:52 Shockk wrote:
So Protoss is doing well overall, with the exception of tournament wins, which are decided amongst a select group too small for any statistical relevance. And Terran is doing ok-ish at high levels, but struggingly below masters, which is a group representing a huge percentage of the playerbase.
ok-ish? OK-ISH? Terran are doing AWESOME at high level. And seriously, if you can't understand that eSport and pro-level of play is where the balance is relevant... i'm sorry for you. Any balance statement is falacious and utterly stupid if the game is not played at a very high level, simply because it means that the players are only using a small percentage of what is available to them and not efficiently. And, the game feel actually quite balanced lately. But eSports don't make money for Blizzard, it the little guys that populate the metals and the 2v2s. Are you that enthusiastic about HotS? I'm not and don't feel like I have to have it, to be honest. Also if the declining player numbers according to sc2ranks are at all accurate, it means HotS won't sell well, and the other expansion might even be cancelled imo.
There is so much wrong information in this post it is staggering.
Large tournaments have to pay Blizzard in order to use SC2. Even small tournaments provided valuable marketing for Blizzard and SC2 and help promote the brand. There is no recurring monthly subscription for playing SC2, so if Blizzard wants to make money in addition to initial sales of the game, it is through these tournaments and the additional players it might bring in.
Declining player numbers means that the "casual" players are getting sick of Wings of Liberty. This is perfectly normal and expected to be frank. I don't think Blizzard expected every single person who purchased the game to play regularly for the rest of their lives. It's a statement for the longevity of the game that players only started to decline almost a year and a half after release with only minor content additions.
I also guarantee you that unless they really didn't like SC2, most of those people will buy HotS and play it for at least a little bit, just like they did with WoL. Not playing SC2 doesn't mean that they're done with the franchise, it means they are done with WoL. But they bought it for a reason, and unless the game didn't live up to their standard, they'll buy HotS for the same reason.
And there is no way they'll cancel Legacy of the Void unless HotS is a complete failure (which I don't see happening). Too much potential money there for them to just scrap it for no reason.
|
Agree on all points, wouldn't say FFE is a problem PvZ though... and where's the snipe-nerf for lategame TvZ? Thought that was probably the most needed change of all. (I play Toss)
|
maybe a question regarding the core design of the game shouldve been answered i didnt think his responses made anyone feel all that better
|
Its cool that they are listening to the community on current balance issues and FoTM build problems but are Blizzard ever going to tackle the issue of P needing a from the ground up redesign? People in this thread have already pointed out colossus as a badly designed unit and the whole concept of warp-gates is still pretty terrible.
TvP is annoying as hell to play, Terran can crush early-mid game while toss can either go for some all-in or be super passive till they hit three base. Terran can hang outside Tosses natural, splitting armies and dropping while delaying the toss 3rd. Once again we are presented with the scenario where the toss can't do much but defend and keep their colossus/templars and tech buildings alive.
Terran has to go Vikings when they see Colossus and are inevitably going to add ghosts later while toss has nearly zero harass options apart from some surprise DTs or blink-stalkers both of which usually are part of an all-in. Chargelots are boring, minimal micro damage sponges, which lead to the comical situation of a terran player kiting at 300apm while the toss can't actually do anything other than make sure their core ball doesn't fall too far behind the chargelots. I could go on but suffice to say the matchup is flawed and not fun to watch or play.
TvZ is a ridiculous amount of fun though ^^
|
Looks like mech vs Protoss is not even on their mind, sigh...
HOTS can't come soon enough.
|
How come only P's can complain about mass muta?
Mass muta is equally annoying and ridiculous in TvZ.
|
I kind of like the suggestion for 0 supply observers in the comments. I mean they do cost 75 gas.
Mutas are a bitch in PvZ, but phoenix can kite mutas forever until you get storms or archons. Stargates are still pretty good against zerg. I'm trying out phoenix into chargelot/sentry into HT-- not too bad.
|
On January 26 2012 04:30 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Looks like mech vs Protoss is not even on their mind, sigh...
HOTS can't come soon enough.
Mech vs protoss cannot work as long as tanks cannot beat immortal without ridiculous numbers.
|
So blizzard will now listen to bronzies to adjust the game??????? Moving units etc (read Terran cant beat Protoss). Terran is very generic very basic race, if you played any rts before (CnC, War3) its very simplistic (at lower levels)... I dont understand you Kim
|
On January 26 2012 02:47 SgtCoDFish wrote:I noticed this as I logged into B.net; it's a blog by David Kim answering some questions about some current hot topics in SC2. The topics he discusses are: - Mass Mutalisks vs. Protoss
- Protoss Win Rate is Too Low in Tournaments
- Carrier Removal in Heart of the Swarm
- Terran Can’t Beat Protoss
- Ghost EMP is Too Weak
- Forge Fast Expand is Difficult to Stop as Zerg
- Nydus Worm is Too Inconsistent — Make It More Like the Overlord Transport
Here's the intro and a link to the blog: + Show Spoiler [Intro] +I recently took an opportunity to share some of the feedback I received from pro players at the G Star event in Korea via a Q & A, and I was interested to see your reactions to that discussion in the blog comments and on the forum. I noticed that some players were worried that we don’t take the community’s feedback into account, and that we only listen to pro players. While we base our balance decisions on many different factors, including pro player feedback, internal testing, tournament play and more, our player community remains a vital source of feedback about StarCraft II. Every week we comb various forums and sites to get a feel for what our players are experiencing, and I thought I’d comment on some of the concerns we’ve seen appear in the community recently.
I thought it was pretty interesting, and it answers some of the questions I would've liked to ask him myself. Enjoy. :D
Notice hao most of this shit is protoss related... Notice how we havent heard from huk in a while.. notice hao orgasm toss (oGsMC = orGasMC toss well not anymoar  ) got demoted to code a.. Fuck
On January 26 2012 04:30 architecture wrote:
How come only P's can complain about mass muta?
Mass muta is equally annoying and ridiculous in TvZ.
Protoss dont have marines. Marines make holding mutas so much easier than stalkers. There is no critical mass of mutas that will kill a big bunch of stimmed marines while mutas will start raping huge groups of stalkers.
|
On January 26 2012 04:30 architecture wrote:
How come only P's can complain about mass muta?
Mass muta is equally annoying and ridiculous in TvZ.
We dont have those 50 mineral units that kill staff really fast when you press "T"
|
On January 26 2012 04:09 50bani wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 04:01 Xalorian wrote:On January 26 2012 03:52 Shockk wrote:
So Protoss is doing well overall, with the exception of tournament wins, which are decided amongst a select group too small for any statistical relevance. And Terran is doing ok-ish at high levels, but struggingly below masters, which is a group representing a huge percentage of the playerbase.
ok-ish? OK-ISH? Terran are doing AWESOME at high level. And seriously, if you can't understand that eSport and pro-level of play is where the balance is relevant... i'm sorry for you. Any balance statement is falacious and utterly stupid if the game is not played at a very high level, simply because it means that the players are only using a small percentage of what is available to them and not efficiently. And, the game feel actually quite balanced lately. But eSports don't make money for Blizzard, it the little guys that populate the metals and the 2v2s. Are you that enthusiastic about HotS? I'm not and don't feel like I have to have it, to be honest. Also if the declining player numbers according to sc2ranks are at all accurate, it means HotS won't sell well, and the other expansion might even be cancelled imo.
Aside from the fact that this is a moot point, as Blizz recognise this (to an extent, and better than you do) and stated in the blog that they're looking to make things better for lower level terrans even if it means higher terrans have to work harder.
You have a very narrow view to say that eSports doesn't make money for Blizzard, or rather StarCraft existing as an esport. Surely you can see that the growth of MLG and GSL, as well as other tournaments, propagating StarCraft further and further is making Blizzard money? How many people are there who are just going to encounter StarCraft as a game rather than as an esport? Not very many left, this long after launch. It's the exposure of SC2 to the mainstream that is what will generate sales now. Blizzard will enjoy the highest revenues if they support the competitive scene as best they can, I mean they even have a deal in place where they take 50% of ad revenue of any tournament with a prize pool higher than $5k.
Look at reddit, where Starcraft posts occupy top 10 spots on the front page for hours almost daily. There is no question that continuing to support SC2 as an esport pays for itself even in free advertising everywhere. Those little guys in 2v2s and metals? Theres a high chance the reason they found out about StarCraft is because of it's power and exposure as an esport.
|
|
|
On January 26 2012 03:50 Angel_ wrote:
i would like to officially state my opinion that if any other company was in charge of game design i think starcraft 2 would be a more complex game, with a lot more depth of play. i dont think they concretely answered a single question, and they talk about "lower level" without it affecting "higher level", like that's actually something they're really capable of doing without higher level players taking advantage of it.
completely disagree with that. i think blizzards approach is very good, and i'd just ignore the talk about low level balance as something they say to keep the masses at peace. not something they actually do often or at all.
|
On January 26 2012 04:22 HaXXspetten wrote:
Agree on all points, wouldn't say FFE is a problem PvZ though... and where's the snipe-nerf for lategame TvZ? Thought that was probably the most needed change of all. (I play Toss)
Ghost snipe is not a problem in TvZ, considering you always need tanks against zerg against a competent unit composition and broodlords attacking ghosts with tanks hurting them with friendly fire is always a problem. It's just a micro battle (and its a lot more complex than ghost vs HT, which is just retarded). Also if your ghosts are even slightly out of position in a scenario where both players have equal supply, you just lose the game as Terran.
I think there was a game MVP vs Stephano or some other zerg where he made 50 ghosts, the other guy had broodlord/infestor/ling with similar supplies and the zerg won, even with the terran on the high ground. That's just one game, but it's fucking MVP. There is no problem with ghost snipe.
EDIT: I think it was against darkforce actually. O hai darkforce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
