Heart of the Swarm TvP Battle Report! - Page 64

On August 15 2012 11:49 Wombat_NI wrote:

(Big post btw, sorry I got into rant mode!)
That's a cool dynamic though, those units mentioned have strengths AND weaknesses. Marines have high DPS, are cheap and scale really well with micro. They're weak to AoE, but this can be mitigated with the aformentioned micro. Marauders likewise, they're tanky and great vs armoured units and buildings. However they don't have the massive DPS of a marine, and can thus be swarmed by zealots/zerglings and the likes that do have this high DPS and don't suffer bonus damage from the marauder.

Collosi to take one example, have no real weaknesses. High damage that scales well in numbers, pretty fast, cliffwalking, not difficult to use close to optimally. Having a counter-unit (viking/corruptor) doesn't mitigate that this is poor DESIGN. Blizzard have created a unit that is not necessarily imbalanced, but it's poor to play with and to watch. I'm not a BW fanboy, but Protoss' AoE unit, the Reaver was interesting in that, it was slow (although had synergy with the shuttle, which was also cool). It did a ton of AoE in bursts, it needed babysitting in that it was extremely weak, fired slowly and needed good target firing to really get the most of it. Blizzard also didn't design the Reaver with that shuttle synergy in mind. It developed naturally, and unlike in SC2 when interesting things like that are discovered they didn't re-design it to fit into what THEY considered its role..

This post is not me harking back to a golden age of BW, as I was too young to really appreciate it, I'm looking at a game that showcased a basic understanding that when you design units, you balance out corresponding strengths with weaknesses, either statistically, or in the difficulty of using the unit to make the most of those abilities. While some of these balances were actually a result of the UI and the mechanical difficulty of play, they still created a much more dynamic, back-and-forth style of gameplay.

By not conforming to this rather simple idea, Blizzard have created a situation that they look to balance the power of these ridiculous units by forcing players into building clearly marked counter-units. Instead of players positioning well, engaging and outplaying their opponent mechanically, with balanced compositions, it can often be about making the exact amount of counter-units to ridiculously versatile death-bringers (see the Viking/Collosi dynamic). Essentially Blizz are going 'OK Collosi are ridiculously strong against everything on the ground, but it's ok we gave you counter units that you have to build or you'll die.' This also explains why mid-late PvP is always, always Collosus wars because Protoss lack the kind of specific counter-unit to Collosi that is reachable in a standard game.

Look at some of the patches in the past that have dealt with 'balance issues' instead of letting the game develop organically, with cool solutions being found. It is either dealing with an issue by making a specific counter-unit stronger, or removing utility and cool functionality that the community has found.

1.'Ghost snipe is too powerful against Zerg lategame. Nerfed.' - Now it's (for the most part) ONLY used to directly counter templar. This cool use of ghosts, while perhaps overly potent in lategame TvZ is now gone, the playerbase figured a way to use the ghost in a way not prescribed by Blizzard, and it's removed.
2. '1/1/1 too strong, buff Immortal range' - 1/1/1 wasn't a fun period for anyone, but this just makes tank play in TvP even worse, plus makes Immortals, the hard counter to marauders and stalkers even more potent in that role. Players were figuring out the solution anyway, and the map-pool having the likes of XNC were why that build was so horrible to play against on ladder.

The other side of this particular grievance is mine is that the stuff that is broken from a design perspective, clearly and fundamentally isn't fixed. For example, Warpgate has been nerfed over and over again to try and fix PvP, but the elephant in the room is that Warpgates themselves are a ridiculous mechanic as they stand currently. They aren't a strategic decision, there is no tradeoff. Warpgates are better than standard Gateways in every conceivable way, they produce faster than gateways, and can bypass huge distances on the map. Additionally, their potency when used in timing attacks has nerfed unsupported gateway armies to the extent that Protoss generally has to either all-in or turtle into deathballs 9/10 games.

Browder has stated that he wants to breakup deathballs. Warpgate and the path that that design decision has railroaded Protoss down is a direct contributory factor as to why Protoss Deathballs exist as the primary playstyle of the race.

Now with HoTS
1. 'We don't like Tank/positional play in TvT, we'll give you a unit that lets you A-move tanks and hard counter them'

Warhounds, and the preview vid pissed me off personally because they are clear indicators that Blizzard have really learned nothing. Its a clear continuation of this ridiculous design philosophy that is pursued by the Devs either through wilful ignorance, or a desire to cater to the casual gamers that plague many a franchise. The stats may change of course, and it can't shoot up, but that really seems to be the only weakness of the unit when coupled with battlehellions. It's a boring, vanilla, unit specifically design to kill another type of unit with no real difficulties in how its used.

TLDR Bitching on these issues are legitimate because the HoTS previews and interviews that I have seen thus far indicate that Blizzard do not understand their own game, and do not understand the desires of the majority of the relatively serious playerbase. Dustin Browder does not like the positional nuance of tank-based TvT, so he's pretty much gutting it due to his own personal preferences and is showing a disregard for the playerbase. The Dev team aren't tackling the big issues that many people have with the game and their root contributory causes.

WC3 is a good example, Reign of Chaos and The Frozen Throne are two nearly unrecognisible games. The devs had the balls to really redesign a lot of the game, and similar balls were expected/hoped for with HoTS but there is NO evidence of this occurring. THIS is why people are pissed off, if there was evidence they'd been experimenting with the fundamentals of the game and fucked up, people would at least give them credit for trying.

Unit interaction, and what counters what are only band-aid fixes on a game with fundamental problems.

On August 15 2012 11:49 Wombat_NI wrote:

(Big post btw, sorry I got into rant mode!)
That's a cool dynamic though, those units mentioned have strengths AND weaknesses. Marines have high DPS, are cheap and scale really well with micro. They're weak to AoE, but this can be mitigated with the aformentioned micro. Marauders likewise, they're tanky and great vs armoured units and buildings. However they don't have the massive DPS of a marine, and can thus be swarmed by zealots/zerglings and the likes that do have this high DPS and don't suffer bonus damage from the marauder.

Collosi to take one example, have no real weaknesses. High damage that scales well in numbers, pretty fast, cliffwalking, not difficult to use close to optimally. Having a counter-unit (viking/corruptor) doesn't mitigate that this is poor DESIGN. Blizzard have created a unit that is not necessarily imbalanced, but it's poor to play with and to watch. I'm not a BW fanboy, but Protoss' AoE unit, the Reaver was interesting in that, it was slow (although had synergy with the shuttle, which was also cool). It did a ton of AoE in bursts, it needed babysitting in that it was extremely weak, fired slowly and needed good target firing to really get the most of it. Blizzard also didn't design the Reaver with that shuttle synergy in mind. It developed naturally, and unlike in SC2 when interesting things like that are discovered they didn't re-design it to fit into what THEY considered its role..

This post is not me harking back to a golden age of BW, as I was too young to really appreciate it, I'm looking at a game that showcased a basic understanding that when you design units, you balance out corresponding strengths with weaknesses, either statistically, or in the difficulty of using the unit to make the most of those abilities. While some of these balances were actually a result of the UI and the mechanical difficulty of play, they still created a much more dynamic, back-and-forth style of gameplay.

By not conforming to this rather simple idea, Blizzard have created a situation that they look to balance the power of these ridiculous units by forcing players into building clearly marked counter-units. Instead of players positioning well, engaging and outplaying their opponent mechanically, with balanced compositions, it can often be about making the exact amount of counter-units to ridiculously versatile death-bringers (see the Viking/Collosi dynamic). Essentially Blizz are going 'OK Collosi are ridiculously strong against everything on the ground, but it's ok we gave you counter units that you have to build or you'll die.' This also explains why mid-late PvP is always, always Collosus wars because Protoss lack the kind of specific counter-unit to Collosi that is reachable in a standard game.

Look at some of the patches in the past that have dealt with 'balance issues' instead of letting the game develop organically, with cool solutions being found. It is either dealing with an issue by making a specific counter-unit stronger, or removing utility and cool functionality that the community has found.

1.'Ghost snipe is too powerful against Zerg lategame. Nerfed.' - Now it's (for the most part) ONLY used to directly counter templar. This cool use of ghosts, while perhaps overly potent in lategame TvZ is now gone, the playerbase figured a way to use the ghost in a way not prescribed by Blizzard, and it's removed.
2. '1/1/1 too strong, buff Immortal range' - 1/1/1 wasn't a fun period for anyone, but this just makes tank play in TvP even worse, plus makes Immortals, the hard counter to marauders and stalkers even more potent in that role. Players were figuring out the solution anyway, and the map-pool having the likes of XNC were why that build was so horrible to play against on ladder.

The other side of this particular grievance is mine is that the stuff that is broken from a design perspective, clearly and fundamentally isn't fixed. For example, Warpgate has been nerfed over and over again to try and fix PvP, but the elephant in the room is that Warpgates themselves are a ridiculous mechanic as they stand currently. They aren't a strategic decision, there is no tradeoff. Warpgates are better than standard Gateways in every conceivable way, they produce faster than gateways, and can bypass huge distances on the map. Additionally, their potency when used in timing attacks has nerfed unsupported gateway armies to the extent that Protoss generally has to either all-in or turtle into deathballs 9/10 games.

Browder has stated that he wants to breakup deathballs. Warpgate and the path that that design decision has railroaded Protoss down is a direct contributory factor as to why Protoss Deathballs exist as the primary playstyle of the race.

Now with HoTS
1. 'We don't like Tank/positional play in TvT, we'll give you a unit that lets you A-move tanks and hard counter them'

Warhounds, and the preview vid pissed me off personally because they are clear indicators that Blizzard have really learned nothing. Its a clear continuation of this ridiculous design philosophy that is pursued by the Devs either through wilful ignorance, or a desire to cater to the casual gamers that plague many a franchise. The stats may change of course, and it can't shoot up, but that really seems to be the only weakness of the unit when coupled with battlehellions. It's a boring, vanilla, unit specifically design to kill another type of unit with no real difficulties in how its used.

TLDR Bitching on these issues are legitimate because the HoTS previews and interviews that I have seen thus far indicate that Blizzard do not understand their own game, and do not understand the desires of the majority of the relatively serious playerbase. Dustin Browder does not like the positional nuance of tank-based TvT, so he's pretty much gutting it due to his own personal preferences and is showing a disregard for the playerbase. The Dev team aren't tackling the big issues that many people have with the game and their root contributory causes.

WC3 is a good example, Reign of Chaos and The Frozen Throne are two nearly unrecognisible games. The devs had the balls to really redesign a lot of the game, and similar balls were expected/hoped for with HoTS but there is NO evidence of this occurring. THIS is why people are pissed off, if there was evidence they'd been experimenting with the fundamentals of the game and fucked up, people would at least give them credit for trying.

Unit interaction, and what counters what are only band-aid fixes on a game with fundamental problems.