|
On August 22 2012 05:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 05:18 Klipsys wrote:On August 22 2012 01:31 nam nam wrote:On August 22 2012 01:21 Klipsys wrote:
Who really cares what cloud thinks? Has he even won anything ever? That isn't relevant to the discussion. You can't have a valid opinion without being the best player in the world? Why are you even reading this forum if you don't care about opinions of people that have never won anything, because that's probably close to 99,9 % of the community? Because he's just one pro out of hundreds and who really cares what he thinks about a game in beta that isn't out yet? The fact that he hasn't won anything in WOL means he hasn't even mastered that yet, and he's commenting on a game in beta? I don't think anyone should care what someone says about an unfinished game, even if they are the best player in the world. I care even less when they're not even top 100 Then you're a fool. If criticism was only valid after a game was finished, then bad ideas would hit the scene all the time and we wouldn't see them removed because you can't just remove entire units or fundamentally change units in an e-sport game after it is released. That is what the time before the game is finished is for.
I never said it wasn't valid, I said I don't care what he thinks about an unfinished game, nor do I understand why anyone cares what he says about an unfinished game. Blizzard may care but why should we? Most people know little to nothing about game design and balance, so any advice/cristim they give is mostly useless anyway since as a player it's going to be inherently bias. He may be right but the game isn't done. He's talking in absolutes which is fucking stupid. He's missing the point that blizzard is making a product for everyone not just for progamers. That's just the way it is. They're not going to make the game harder to play, that's such a broad request anyway. If they made the game harder to play they won't get the casual base they need to sustain it as a business.
|
On August 22 2012 05:22 boxman22 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 05:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 22 2012 03:42 boxman22 wrote:On August 22 2012 03:29 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 22 2012 03:27 Yoduh wrote:
I want to point out how most people making huge complaints and posting all this negativity are only focusing on one or two new units and declaring the whole expansion a dud before the beta is even out. I don't mind complaining, it makes for good feedback, but looking at the bigger picture theres a lot of things being done right with HotS. I haven't seen a single complaint against the viper, hydra speed, ultralist burrow charge or reaper upgrade. A lot of people are cool with the oracle, mothership core, and battle hellion. People are on the fence about tempest, widow mine, and swarm host but only for possibly not being powerful enough. Really the only constant complaints being made are against the warhound and general fears about continued deathball vs. deathball "a-move" gameplay.
Doesn't sound too bad for still being pre-beta! And once beta starts there will probably be a floodgate of changes, and I think a lot of people complaining that Blizzard never listens are gonna get shut up. If you can remember back to SC2:WoL beta Blizzard was making changes all the time. People forget that. Once a game is released it's different, and they become way more hesitant to make big changes, and rightfully so. But beta time is great. I don't know what kind of changes are yet to be made, but in a few months you can bet we won't be looking at the same game we see today. So to nay sayers I simply say continue criticizing and giving feedback, that's good, but the predictions about SC2 and HotS failing are just too premature for this stage of development. Warpgate is still a stupid mechanic and it's been in the game forever. It's also a contributory factor to why[i/] Protoss games largely consist of allins or deathballing. Lol how does warpgate cause deathballs? Warpgate, if anything, would be antideathball. Sure it would increase all-ins, but you can't say deathball at all... Either do your research on the topic or think for yourself. Warp Gate is THE contributing factor to why Protoss needs to play a deathball style. It's the root cause of all things bad with the race. Let me see if I can make a concise diagram. Warp Gate -> Gateway units have to be weak due to Warp In's strength -> Gateway units suck -> majority of the Protoss army sucks as lone units -> Protoss units need to mesh very well or Protoss as a race will fail -> Deathball play is born. That's a gross oversimplification. In really low numbers they can beat similar cost terran or zerg armies, either through kiting or sentries. Then in the midgame they get weak till colossi. That's not a case of being weak in small groups. Plus if you've ever watched blink stalkers v. zerg I don't think you can make a general statement that gateway units are weak.
It is an oversimplification; I'm pretty sure that's the point of a concise diagram is to not get into the nitty-gritty details.
That said, the point still stands. Gateway units only work in very low numbers and with a lot of positional advantage (defensive positions + Forcefields). Even then, a Bio force with Stim/CS/+1 upgrades can just roll over a Gateway army unless they get [i]very unlucky with Forcefields. Blink Stalkers are also only really good as timing attacks; if the Zerg knows that they're coming or if the attack comes too late, then they get crushed by pure Roach or Roach/Ling or (ideally) Infestor/anything.
I never said it wasn't valid, I said I don't care what he thinks about an unfinished game, nor do I understand why anyone cares what he says about an unfinished game. Blizzard may care but why should we? Most people know little to nothing about game design and balance, so any advice/cristim they give is mostly useless anyway since as a player it's going to be inherently bias. He may be right but the game isn't done. He's talking in absolutes which is fucking stupid. He's missing the point that blizzard is making a product for everyone not just for progamers. That's just the way it is. They're not going to make the game harder to play, that's such a broad request anyway. If they made the game harder to play they won't get the casual base they need to sustain it as a business.
You're missing the point. It's not about making the game harder to play across the board. The game was already made very easy to play by including all of the UI improvements (unlimited units, smart casting, MBS, automine, etc. etc. etc). The point is to make it so that high level success is hard to achieve. Adding a-move units to Terran only lowers the skill ceiling required to play that race at a high level, which isn't a good thing.
|
On August 22 2012 05:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 05:22 boxman22 wrote:On August 22 2012 05:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 22 2012 03:42 boxman22 wrote:On August 22 2012 03:29 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 22 2012 03:27 Yoduh wrote:
I want to point out how most people making huge complaints and posting all this negativity are only focusing on one or two new units and declaring the whole expansion a dud before the beta is even out. I don't mind complaining, it makes for good feedback, but looking at the bigger picture theres a lot of things being done right with HotS. I haven't seen a single complaint against the viper, hydra speed, ultralist burrow charge or reaper upgrade. A lot of people are cool with the oracle, mothership core, and battle hellion. People are on the fence about tempest, widow mine, and swarm host but only for possibly not being powerful enough. Really the only constant complaints being made are against the warhound and general fears about continued deathball vs. deathball "a-move" gameplay.
Doesn't sound too bad for still being pre-beta! And once beta starts there will probably be a floodgate of changes, and I think a lot of people complaining that Blizzard never listens are gonna get shut up. If you can remember back to SC2:WoL beta Blizzard was making changes all the time. People forget that. Once a game is released it's different, and they become way more hesitant to make big changes, and rightfully so. But beta time is great. I don't know what kind of changes are yet to be made, but in a few months you can bet we won't be looking at the same game we see today. So to nay sayers I simply say continue criticizing and giving feedback, that's good, but the predictions about SC2 and HotS failing are just too premature for this stage of development. Warpgate is still a stupid mechanic and it's been in the game forever. It's also a contributory factor to why[i/] Protoss games largely consist of allins or deathballing. Lol how does warpgate cause deathballs? Warpgate, if anything, would be antideathball. Sure it would increase all-ins, but you can't say deathball at all... Either do your research on the topic or think for yourself. Warp Gate is THE contributing factor to why Protoss needs to play a deathball style. It's the root cause of all things bad with the race. Let me see if I can make a concise diagram. Warp Gate -> Gateway units have to be weak due to Warp In's strength -> Gateway units suck -> majority of the Protoss army sucks as lone units -> Protoss units need to mesh very well or Protoss as a race will fail -> Deathball play is born. That's a gross oversimplification. In really low numbers they can beat similar cost terran or zerg armies, either through kiting or sentries. Then in the midgame they get weak till colossi. That's not a case of being weak in small groups. Plus if you've ever watched blink stalkers v. zerg I don't think you can make a general statement that gateway units are weak. It is an oversimplification; I'm pretty sure that's the point of a concise diagram is to not get into the nitty-gritty details. That said, the point still stands. Gateway units only work in very low numbers and with a lot of positional advantage (defensive positions + Forcefields). Even then, a Bio force with Stim/CS/+1 upgrades can just roll over a Gateway army unless they get [i]very unlucky with Forcefields. Blink Stalkers are also only really good as timing attacks; if the Zerg knows that they're coming or if the attack comes too late, then they get crushed by pure Roach or Roach/Ling or (ideally) Infestor/anything.
Yea but if you ignore the nitty-gritty details sometimes you miss the point. The reason Protoss don't use warpgate to do tiny harass is because they'd get crushed by a stim bio deathball or a roach deathball. If you see hero with a warp prism, small numbers of gateway units can cause major amounts of damage in terran production or by zerg hatches. The problem isn't exactly warpgate. The problem is the exact way warpgate plays in with the other mechanics and races.
|
The idea that WG tech makes Protoss gateway units weak is falacious and has had currency for the longest time.
The only "weak" Gateway unit is the Stalker, and that is because it is balanced around Blink not WG. Simply put, Blink Dragoons would be OP. Zealots are very strong, and IIRC, kill more lings, for example, than in BW. In PvT, for example, the Zealot/Stalker/Stalker army is quite strong unless the Terran has a bunker, an ability advantage (i.e. concussive shell) or an appreciable unit advantage. DTs remain strong and HTs are as they always were. A good psionic storm is game deciding or game changing. Both these units can also be morphed into Archons who (after the range buff) are beasts in combat (especially against certain unit types).
The perceived weakness of Gateway units is, possibly, in comparison to BW but is more an effect of the "terrible terrible damage" thinking in WOL. Not to mention mechanics like reactored units and the Zerg larvae mechanic that mean significant unit advantages versus Protoss. There are other issues as well, for example, the Stalker is the backbone of the Protoss army in PvZ (but scales badly - due, again, to the power of a well controlled Blink army), while the Zealot is the backbone of the Protoss army in PvT but is a melee unit engaging ranged units with all the problems this implies.
There is nothing wrong with WG. Protoss need the faster production to keep up with Zerg and Terran in WOL.
|
On August 22 2012 05:13 boxman22 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 04:35 LuckyMacro wrote:On August 22 2012 03:50 boxman22 wrote:On August 22 2012 03:19 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 22 2012 03:09 boxman22 wrote:On August 22 2012 02:58 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well played sir, excellent post. Don't know why you bothered given that people will not even bother to read it in all likelihood and continue to spout inaccuracies based on their assumptions on why people don't like the direction that HoTS appears to be going. His post isn't particularly good at all. It's all based around the assumption that Wings of Liberty is somehow too volatile and has too much randomness, too little skill. I assume this is because he is a BW elitist who thinks everything was better in BW. People never bother to check stats. Wanna guess who has a higher total winrate, Taeja or Fantasy (both at the top of TLPD, Korean Sc2/BW respectively)? Taeja. 4 time winners the OSL? None. GSL? 1 in 2 years. Given SC2 is an INCREDIBLY new game by BW standards, the fact that it's so STABLE is incredible. People just like spouting shit without backing any of it up. To take an extreme example, PvP was never an unfair matchup, or imbalanced in the worst days of 4 gating, but was it optimal in a design sense? Taeja is crazy good, but there's a lot of tournaments where they are no clear favourites, it's 'Here are 15 people who could win if they have a good day' every time. For every Tajea there's 3 Elfis who just shouldn't be beating players who are many levels above them in every aspect of the game. Terran players are the only ones who I've ever really looked at as being able to turn those incremental mechanical edges into consistently dominant play, we need more of that to stabilise the game. There are upsets in all games, but Brood War and even Warcraft 3 were a lot less volatile for a reason. Terran is the race that is actually well designed, with a lot of variance in potential playstyles and cool versatile units, why not take more notice of why that is, and emulate that approach with the other races. You don't necessarily have to sacrifice the identifying characteristics of the races to do this either I didn't even play BW much and was unaware of the pro scene until retroactively looking back and checking out games. It just boggles my mind that at least some of what made it such a good E-sport are overlooked, actively by the designers. Browder has said SC2 is a different game from BW, they're both good games but different, if you want BW, play that. That's fine if it was a new franchise or something, it's a sequel to the bloody original game and ignoring part of what made it great as an E-sport is just refusing to swallow your pride. I have an open mind, and I'm basing my assessment on what I'm seeing. I was actually hopefully with a lot of the interviews from a few months ago, referring to breaking up deathball play and putting more of an emphasis on hard-to-use units. Then now by all accounts the Terran players now have a mech deathball so now all 3 races can have deathball wars? Great stuff! Blizzard in their public utterances appear to acknowledge and be aware of a lot of issue, claim they're designing the game with those in mind, and then when what we're seeing does not correlate with what they said of course people are going to get pissy! The main thing I think is stupid with Sc2 is the lack of the high ground advantage mechanic. If you don't want something that is random just make it so that units on the low ground deal 75% damage to units on the high ground. Bam, larger defenders advantage and positional play. Other than that, people just like to pretend the BW isn't a game where anybody could win on any given day. Did you watch Ace beat KT today? "BW and WC3 were less volatile". Back that up. I've shown you examples that show it was not any less volatile, people just like pretending it is. Guess who won the last two OSLs . JangBi. But wait wasn't Flash dominant? JangBi over Fantasy = OSL finals. Flash over Zero MSL finals. How bout the MSL before that? Hydra over Great. Who? Yea that's right, not volatile in the slightest. It's clear that you don't know all that much about BW...why try to use BW in your argument? BW was less volatile, anyone watching it for years could tell you that. Btw, Jangbi is fucken good. So is Hydra. And yes, Flash was fucken dominant, that's why it's a HUGE shock whenever he did lose in those major tournements. He'll be pretty much invincible the whole season and just lose one boX. He was so dominant that if he ever dared to lose twice in his last 30 games, people said he was "slumping." This doesn't take anything away from Fantasy or Jangbi thought, those two are sick good. Btw, about ace beating KT...KT was always a team that could be beat. Esp. in the past where Flash could only carry in winners-league. I'm just saying how far can you define "dominant" players until it doesn't mean shit? There have been multiple patches during which the same players have managed to dominate in SC2. The very very top is a little more dominated by one person lately in BW, but even that isn't entirely true. There have been 7 different winners since 2009 in the OSL and MSL (15 events). In the 13 total GSLs, there have been.................. + Show Spoiler +
To add to this, in the last 2 OSLs, out of the round of 16, 8 were the same. The last two GSLs, out of the round of 20, 16 were the same.
Go back an OSL further, and you have 5 the same 16. Go back a GSL further and you have 11 of the same 20. It would seem like the GSL is less volatile than the OSL. Anyone who says SC2 is much more volatile is just looking at it from a skewed perspective that is not based on stats and instead based on "gut feeling". Even if it is (it might be, I haven't done any in depth statistical analysis over a really large sample, this is obviously a very small sample), it's not massively more volatile than BW like some people seem to think.
|
On August 22 2012 05:24 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 05:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 22 2012 05:18 Klipsys wrote:On August 22 2012 01:31 nam nam wrote:On August 22 2012 01:21 Klipsys wrote:
Who really cares what cloud thinks? Has he even won anything ever? That isn't relevant to the discussion. You can't have a valid opinion without being the best player in the world? Why are you even reading this forum if you don't care about opinions of people that have never won anything, because that's probably close to 99,9 % of the community? Because he's just one pro out of hundreds and who really cares what he thinks about a game in beta that isn't out yet? The fact that he hasn't won anything in WOL means he hasn't even mastered that yet, and he's commenting on a game in beta? I don't think anyone should care what someone says about an unfinished game, even if they are the best player in the world. I care even less when they're not even top 100 Then you're a fool. If criticism was only valid after a game was finished, then bad ideas would hit the scene all the time and we wouldn't see them removed because you can't just remove entire units or fundamentally change units in an e-sport game after it is released. That is what the time before the game is finished is for. I never said it wasn't valid, I said I don't care what he thinks about an unfinished game, nor do I understand why anyone cares what he says about an unfinished game. Blizzard may care but why should we? Most people know little to nothing about game design and balance, so any advice/cristim they give is mostly useless anyway since as a player it's going to be inherently bias. He may be right but the game isn't done. He's talking in absolutes which is fucking stupid. He's missing the point that blizzard is making a product for everyone not just for progamers. That's just the way it is. They're not going to make the game harder to play, that's such a broad request anyway. If they made the game harder to play they won't get the casual base they need to sustain it as a business.
So you don't care about cloud opinion? Should we care about yours then?
don't think so..
I think Nerchio was the guy that gave a better input imo
|
On August 22 2012 05:37 aZealot wrote:
The idea that WG tech makes Protoss gateway units weak is falacious and has had currency for the longest time.
The only "weak" Gateway unit is the Stalker, and that is because it is balanced around Blink not WG. Simply put, Blink Dragoons would be OP. Zealots are very strong, and IIRC, kill more lings, for example, than in BW. In PvT, for example, the Zealot/Stalker/Stalker army is quite strong unless the Terran has a bunker, an ability advantage (i.e. concussive shell) or an appreciable unit advantage. DTs remain strong and HTs are as they always were. A good psionic storm is game deciding or game changing. Both these units can also be morphed into Archons who (after the range buff) are beasts in combat (especially against certain unit types).
The perceived weakness of Gateway units is, possibly, in comparison to BW but is more an effect of the "terrible terrible damage" thinking in WOL. Not to mention mechanics like reactored units and the Zerg larvae mechanic that mean significant unit advantages versus Protoss. There are other issues as well, for example, the Stalker is the backbone of the Protoss army in PvZ (but scales badly - due, again, to the power of a well controlled Blink army), while the Zealot is the backbone of the Protoss army in PvT but is a melee unit engaging ranged units with all the problems this implies.
There is nothing wrong with WG. Protoss need the faster production to keep up with Zerg and Terran in WOL.
Good post and don't forget Chrono that makes the protoss keep up in economy and upgrades also
|
A few reasons why there have been so many repeat winners in the GSL:
In the first year of the game there was obviously a lot of skill to be gained. This allows players to dominate despite the game being more volatile than Brood War. Also, there were only a few really strong Brood War players that switched over, therefore the pool of potential tournament winners was very low. It's easier to become the strongest player in such a small pool. Also, the tournament format of the GSL has been set-up in such a way as to reduce volatility. Also, a lot of GSL tournaments do take place over a very short period of time. This could result in a player with a dominating streak to be able to get several victories in quick succession, creating the illusion the game is not volatile. Also, not all the match-ups are equally volatile at all points in history. There have been periods of less volatility that would allow the superior player to almost always win. Also, just because Brood War had some amount of volatility that does not excuse Starcraft 2. The game is supposed to be somewhat of an improvement over Brood War after all. Also, if match-ups are imbalanced, as they have been in the past, it dilutes the pool of potential tournament champions even more.
|
I'm sorry there is "keeping it real" as people have said about Cloud lately but then there is also "being an arrogant asshole" which he is in this video. To say that about David Kim alone is genuinely arrogant and ignorant. David Kim is tasked with a much harder job then many can realize especially to someone with a small vocabulary and brain as it appears Cloud has. Not only is David Kim tasked with having to help balance an RTS game that is widely popular around the world (this task alone would break most people mentally) he also has to deal with the nonstop public criticism he receives (this would also break most people mentally).
If you want to be out spoken in real life then please expand your vocabulary and don't go calling people an idiot when their job is far harder then yours is Cloud. Grow up please.
|
Great set of interviews. I'm ready for beta. Not thrilled about some of the new units but oh well change is good!
|
On August 21 2012 21:03 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 20:59 Arpayon wrote:
Cloud best whiner, it's sad to be from Italy in these cases I feel Cloud is mischaracterised as a whiner, he's a bit blunt but he doesn't tend to excuse his own losses by using balance whine or whatever. He just has issues with the direction the game is going in a design sense, and some of his criticisms are pretty legitimate even if you disagree with them
I don't necessarily agree with Cloud's assessment but I believe the balance/imbalance taboo needs to be broken. As in, I understand that actually blaming imbalance for what is actually one's own failure is poor sportsmanship, I don't necessarily agree, however, that pretending that everything is perfectly balanced or otherwise perfectly designed is better sportsmanship than saying it like it is. Here the problem is not even only balance but also broader design (skill caps). Blizzard needs to hear negative feedback when it makes poor decisions, especially if this involves sticking to a controversial policy, sticking with a single person's controversial vision and ignoring other voices etc.
For the record, I agree with Blizzard's assessment that Terran was lacking in 1A power compared to other races. But that's only one aspect of the problem and I think that overall, the Terran problem is not going to be solved by the introduction of HotS changes. In fact, I expect it to exacerbate. This is because every race, including Terran, is getting units which are pretty much dedicated XvT counters (mostly siege line breakers/incapacitators). This means even more ways to make a Terran's life hard, even more worries for Terran, even more punishment for small mistakes. Which is basically the problem of Terran as compared to other races: it feels like you're getting punished all the time for choosing Terran.
I wonder where Blizzard has gone wrong. Perhaps using Terran as the reference race and hence overfocus of attention on Terran and therefore overfocus on counters to Terran units and strategies? Bias against the "default" race of WoL? Bias in favour of non-humans (affirmative policy kind of thing, overcompensation of potential racism)? There seems to be a pattern that Terran players have to find ways and develop appropriate metagame if something's a problem in TvP or TvZ, while other races can expect a nerf if something is a problem in XvT. Blizzard might even be right on the merits of the nerfs vs telling players to l2p, but I think if you're consistently telling one race to l2p while addressing the problems of other races with actual interventions, then you at least owe an explanation.
On August 21 2012 20:43 phisku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 19:19 regiment wrote:
* The Battle Cruisers speed boost will be removed, Battle Cruisers will have increased damage Is blizzard going back on a nerf they did? BC were nerfed from 10 to 8 damages.
Circular balance? Nerfing things, then buffing the same things? I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better to leave everything for metagame to sort.
|
On August 22 2012 05:37 aZealot wrote:
The only "weak" Gateway unit is the Stalker, and that is because it is balanced around Blink not WG. Simply put, Blink Dragoons would be OP. Zealots are very strong, and IIRC, kill more lings, for example, than in BW. In PvT, for example, the Zealot/Stalker/Stalker army is quite strong unless the Terran has a bunker, an ability advantage (i.e. concussive shell) or an appreciable unit advantage. DTs remain strong and HTs are as they always were. A good psionic storm is game deciding or game changing. Both these units can also be morphed into Archons who (after the range buff) are beasts in combat (especially against certain unit types).
On the point about Zealots vs Zerglings, in BW Zerglings had a much higher attack speed relative to marines and zealots, so it was about 3 zerglings to 1 zealot, whereas the weaker Zerglings of SC2 mean that it now takes about 4 zerglings to take down 1 zealot. This doesn't really change your point though as zealots ARE about as strong as BW, it's just that zerglings are relatively weaker.
|
On August 21 2012 20:29 Type|NarutO wrote:
In my opinion the warhound needs to be changed. I played HOTS a couple of games and its just insanely strong AND cheap. I am a Terran player so I'd love such an imbalanced unit but the way its now it can't be put into the game.
I played against mouzMarine and we agreed that he'll mech while I'll play bio / biomech a 7 warhounds + bio completely stomped an even if not superior army that was fully put in place and sieged up. (I engaged, not him)
Warhounds have 220HP, 1 armor, range 7 and a movement speed that is faster than a stalker or any other Protoss unit that would be on the field early. It deals 23 base damage and has a haywire missile cooldown ability (6 seconds) which deals 30 damage to mechanical units and fires automatically. Thats 53 damage every 6 seconds + the normal damage in between. In addition to that, they cost 150/75 and build very fast (45) seconds with just the factory + techlab.
I think bio+warhounds (could replace viking possibly in the early phase) could pressure Protoss too much in the early game due to its speed and range. Also the warhound alone makes mech viable, which is not a bad thing but since battlehellion is insane vs zealots and warhounds against everything mechanical, mech seems to be insanely strong.
Well I'm looking forward to it, but I cannot believe its staying like it is now.
Honestly, we all know David Kim is Terran biased. The Warhound was designed for TvT so that you could a-move Tank lines and still win. They want to make sure it'd get used, so they gave it stupidly good stats. It's not very informative in its current state though, we won't know how useful it is when it's actually balanced. Sadly, this affects PvT too because ground Toss isn't very cost effective to begin with. It seems like ZvT and TvT are their major focus for HoTS. Only now right before beta are they playing catch up with the metagame for the TvP and ZvP matchups, initially axing Mothership like it isn't Protoss' saving race for PvZ at the moment. There should be 3 lead designers, each with their own race bias. It's tough to really want to focus on all the subtlety of all the matchups if you have one race bias.
|
Blizzards method is to make stuff OP and then nerf them as needed. So it stands to reason that the new stuff will generally be OP just to get us to use it.
|
On August 22 2012 07:15 Grumbels wrote:
Also, a lot of GSL tournaments do take place over a very short period of time. This results in a player with a dominating streak to be able to get several victories in quick succession, creating the illusion the game is not volatile.
Fun fact, you're still using your gut instead of actually checking how things are. Did you know that there have been no back to back GSL champions? To take the most obvious example, MVP won his first and latest over a year apart. Nestea won his first and latest 8 months apart.
Plus that still doesn't deal with my latest post: over 2 GSLs (i.e. from season 1 to season 3), 11 of the top 20 stayed the same. If we compare the latest MSL and 2nd to latest OSL (both took 2 months and ended 1 month apart, that's actually less time than over the past three GSLs), there were 5 of the same players in the top 16. People just like pretending BW was less volatile. It was just as volatile if not more.
|
One of the largest factors in balance is always going to be the layout, size and other factors of the map that you play on. Today we dont have Steppes of War or other maps like that anymore, meaning that maps evolve with the game itself. Similarly, in BW maps that were used in tournaments were even largeley made by non-Blizzard groups, and even a new League from what I understand was made by the community iteslf (iCCup). Why doesnt the community extend this idea even further in SC2 and make its own league with rankings again but separate itself from blizzard balancing.
How you may ask? Im not experienced in this, so Im just throwing out this idea now: use the map editor for each current and future maps, use these in our own league so to say, and make any small changes that have to be made for balancing. Changes should then have to be made ONLY after polls or whatever by the community agrees with it. This could also help the game from becoming too bland, especially if multiple strategies wont instantly get nerfed when they get discovered.
How does this tie in with HotS? Well, it doesnt, but it ties in with the discussion going on here. If pro gamers, as well as a large part of the community and almost every terran player complains about skill requirements to play at a decent level, then there is obviously a balance problem between the races. It's only right that the community also has a way to balance the game that will make it more exciting to watch as well as make it more balanced for everyone, not just Taeja, DRG, MVP, etc.
|
On August 21 2012 19:48 syllogism wrote:
Cloud always has the eloquence of a b.net forum poster
yeah  David Kim always comes across as intelligent and level headed, one of the ones who can work with odd ideas and make them work. I wonder more about Dustin Browder who has these BIG IDEAS (that often remind me of command and conquer) that will make things AWESOME, but that would only work in single player or something. The recent (what was it gamescon?) interview with David Kim where they talked about a Terran factory unit that sent a nuke-that-wasn't-a-nuke anywhere on the map to hit the opponents army (but not buildings or workers) seemed pretty similar to a Scud launcher or Scud Storm/Nuke/ from C&C Generals or a V3 from RA2, and sounded suspiciously to me like another Browder notion. . . Range 22 flying units also come to mind....
It's not that they're bad ideas per se, it's just that a lot of these ideas don't. imho, fit into a game that lives off its professional scene like sc2.
|
Please, Blizzard. Cave in already.
Don't think it's really DKim's fault about game design. Sounds more like DB's fault as head designer.
Blizzard shouldn't be trying to put hero units into this game. Like mothership, or mothership core. Please just put in the arbiter, or allow players to build more than one mothership and make them cheaper.
---> Even Violet says that the swarm host is silly.
|
On August 22 2012 15:00 boxman22 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 07:15 Grumbels wrote:
Also, a lot of GSL tournaments do take place over a very short period of time. This results in a player with a dominating streak to be able to get several victories in quick succession, creating the illusion the game is not volatile. Fun fact, you're still using your gut instead of actually checking how things are. Did you know that there have been no back to back GSL champions? To take the most obvious example, MVP won his first and latest over a year apart. Nestea won his first and latest 8 months apart. Plus that still doesn't deal with my latest post: over 2 GSLs (i.e. from season 1 to season 3), 11 of the top 20 stayed the same. If we compare the latest MSL and 2nd to latest OSL (both took 2 months and ended 1 month apart, that's actually less time than over the past three GSLs), there were 5 of the same players in the top 16. People just like pretending BW was less volatile. It was just as volatile if not more.
2010 BigPop MSL
Map Pool: Fighting Spirit • Odd-Eye 3 • Polaris Rhapsody • Triathlon
2011 PDPop MSL
Map Pool: Benzene • Circuit Breaker • Dante's Peak • Triathlon
2011 ABC Mart MSL
Map Pool: Circuit Breaker • Dante's Peak SE • La Mancha • Monte Cristo
2011 Jin Air OSL
Map Pool: New Bloody Ridge • La Mancha • Gladiator • Pathfinder
You can't really compare the two strictly on Top performers across tournaments due to race and playstyle differences on different maps.
A better indicator would be how long a player is considered by many as the bonjwa of each race. But then it becomes subjective so I won't get into that.
On August 22 2012 15:19 westgun wrote:
One of the largest factors in balance is always going to be the layout, size and other factors of the map that you play on. Today we dont have Steppes of War or other maps like that anymore, meaning that maps evolve with the game itself. Similarly, in BW maps that were used in tournaments were even largeley made by non-Blizzard groups, and even a new League from what I understand was made by the community iteslf (iCCup). Why doesnt the community extend this idea even further in SC2 and make its own league with rankings again but separate itself from blizzard balancing.
How you may ask? Im not experienced in this, so Im just throwing out this idea now: use the map editor for each current and future maps, use these in our own league so to say, and make any small changes that have to be made for balancing. Changes should then have to be made ONLY after polls or whatever by the community agrees with it. This could also help the game from becoming too bland, especially if multiple strategies wont instantly get nerfed when they get discovered.
How does this tie in with HotS? Well, it doesnt, but it ties in with the discussion going on here. If pro gamers, as well as a large part of the community and almost every terran player complains about skill requirements to play at a decent level, then there is obviously a balance problem between the races. It's only right that the community also has a way to balance the game that will make it more exciting to watch as well as make it more balanced for everyone, not just Taeja, DRG, MVP, etc.
Yup, Blizzard basically balanced everything on 200/200 deathball on bronze league maps. I wish KeSPA map makers would get busy and make better ones so we can see free flowing play we all know and love. Maybe next season.
|
Cloud is totally correct. Although yeh, Probably isn't David Kim's fault, more like Browders 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
