|
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.
Had the same thought already. I'm wondering why the community doesn't try to make the game "better" on its own. There already were games that had mods that rebalanced the game and those were used in online and offline tournaments.
Wish this would come true.
|
On August 22 2012 16:01 Dustin_Butthead wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 15:00 boxman22 wrote: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.
It's not a better indicator because, as you said, it's subjective. People's emotions are easily swayed into only looking for data that supports their own point. I'm probably guilty of it as well. But at least trying to use data is better than large generalizations. If you can't compare top performers across tournaments then there is literally no way of comparing. And the fact that one person can win everything (or if you'd like, 3, one for each race) is not a good measure of volatility at all. Why would other people's "skill levels" vary so widely that only the top performer is constant?
And if you want to make the qualification about race and playstyle differences then the point is COMPLETELY moot. Then there's no way to ever prove that BW is volatile in the slightest. You've basically defined not volatile as volatile and said it's statistically unable to be studied. MMA tore apart zergs and terrans so when there weren't many good toss he won. When he won his gsl he played only terrans. If you want to explain volatility you can do it for SC2 as well. People just don't like their closely held beliefs challenged.
|
On August 22 2012 07:26 LimeNade wrote:
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.
You can't have a clue about the game, read/listen to some of the stuff DKim is saying, and conclude that he is a person that should be touching this games' balance. I agree that maybe Cloud was rude, but I guess it was some amount of frustration speaking.
|
On August 21 2012 20:25 ROOTT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 20:14 Ramiz1989 wrote:On August 21 2012 20:06 NVRLand wrote:
Would someone please be so kind and explain what that "stasis" ability is? I've checked google translate to find out the swedish word for it but can't find anything that actually explains what the mothership ability will do to the units... haven't found any videos of it being demonstrated either :/ Stasis was new ability on the Mothership, it is ability to freeze all air units around the Mothership, including yours too, because Vortex is working only vs. ground units. lol they added statis? another bw spell 
Yea...next thing they'll do is add workers hydras zerglings marines zelots and so on. I mean come on man..what is this world coming to.... hope they won't do it!
|
On August 22 2012 16:53 boxman22 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 16:01 Dustin_Butthead wrote:On August 22 2012 15:00 boxman22 wrote: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. It's not a better indicator because, as you said, it's subjective. People's emotions are easily swayed into only looking for data that supports their own point. I'm probably guilty of it as well. But at least trying to use data is better than large generalizations. If you can't compare top performers across tournaments then there is literally no way of comparing. And the fact that one person can win everything (or if you'd like, 3, one for each race) is not a good measure of volatility at all. Why would other people's "skill levels" vary so widely that only the top performer is constant? And if you want to make the qualification about race and playstyle differences then the point is COMPLETELY moot. Then there's no way to ever prove that BW is volatile in the slightest. You've basically defined not volatile as volatile and said it's statistically unable to be studied. MMA tore apart zergs and terrans so when there weren't many good toss he won. When he won his gsl he played only terrans. If you want to explain volatility you can do it for SC2 as well. People just don't like their closely held beliefs challenged.
Hey, I gave you tendencies as to why the stats might not be what they appear. I didn't mean to imply all of these would hold at all times, just that they could influence the result. Looking at GSL winners is a ridiculous way to measure volatility in any case. Personally I think it's obvious from the games that 'metagame' imbalance issues plus innate volatility of many match-ups (PvP, ZvZ) lead to situations where it's really hard to decide who will win any given tournament. Yes, if the skill differences are high then it's easy, but don't tell me you can say which one of, say, Seed Creator Squirtle Puzzle Parting Genius San Oz MC is a strong favourite to win a tournament over the other.
I mean, just look at the games: PvZ is heavily dependent on guessing all-ins and vortexes, TvZ on guessing third/fourth CC, mirror match-ups depend a lot on openings as well. TvP has some luck factors with regards to drops and army positioning that's manageable to a degree, but not completely so. A player like Flash can get ridiculous records in proleague against top tier opposition, meanwhile MVP is hardly even a favorite when playing Vortix just because of TvZ being silly.
|
On August 22 2012 16:46 ScoutWBF wrote:Show nested quote +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. Had the same thought already. I'm wondering why the community doesn't try to make the game "better" on its own. There already were games that had mods that rebalanced the game and those were used in online and offline tournaments. Wish this would come true.
There are BW maps (and yes BW is much more balanced and fun to play), it has its' own rating system (similar to ICCup) but it's not popular at all. The problem is that you can't really make a separate server, but the maps will never be similarly popular, because it's not good enough for tournaments. People who are serious about their game want to have a big Ladder and real game to play, not custom maps
|
Sometimes when I see changes made by Blizzard I think that they no nothing about SC2.
So basically Blizzard is forcing this idea, which in itself sounds awesome, that Terrans should play mech or mix into bioball at least this transforming hellions - of course we are talking about games vs P. Sounds reasonable. mmm... or not.
When Terrans play vs P they have to kill Toss as soon as possible. Late game is too tricky (I don't want to use the word imbalanced) and Terran is lacking the possibility to produce something that will scare Toss. As a consequence it is rather reasonable to say again that Terran should kill Protoss ASAP. So 111 or bioball. Bioball is so called standard and when playing bioball with which Terran try to kill Protoss ideally before 20, maybe even 17 minute mark, there is no place for Hellions. Why? Coz unlike Protoss Terran has to make upgrades for bio and mech separately. 0/0 Hellions vs 3/3 Protoss army is a suicide. That is why we see almost only bio which is also 3/3. You think I exaggerate? Look what happens when Protoss is having lots of Colossus - Terran makes Vikings - but they are 0/0, sometimes 1/0. And Viking is not like Hellion - an additional unit. It is a unit that is essential and yet Terran cannot afford and do not have time to make upgrades for them.
Also mech vs Protoss is a not even funny joke for few reasons. First, there are too many units in Protoss army that can very easily kill Tanks, making them at some point of the game almost useless (plus look at HotS clips - Tempest vs sieged Tanks... 22 range? lol). Second - Thors. Ever since they have energy, not cooldown, they are too vulnerable to High Templars.
I am not saying that TvP is imbalanced. It is balanced, but also very fragile. It is so easy to ruin it plus Blizzard efforts called "mech vs P" are funny. I fear that in HotS we will have again bio vs everything that Protoss can afford to build with some crazy 111-like builds.
|
I agree with Cloud, they're dumbing it down and I don't like it. I was a high masters Terran, I worked my way up there through hard work. You give us 1A moves and you're suddenly taking the challenge from the game. What was the point of working my ass off trying to get into GM someday when getting into it suddenly takes so much less skill because you can 1A2A3A to a nice 30 game winstreak against pros?
God if I could still play I probably wouldn't want to, guess I don't have to hate God for not letting me be able to play SC2 now.
|
Cloud just just telling the truth for what the game is
|
4713 Posts
On August 21 2012 23:13 aTnClouD wrote:
I don't understand why some people expect me to articulate my opinion in a short interview when I've been saying the same things over and over for the past 2 years and I've gotten pretty much shit from every clueless SC2 blind fanboy. I can write an insanely long wall of text about all the issues that could have been avoided in SC2 if only the development and balance team was as competent as the Brood War one, but in the end I would just be wasting my time for nothing and more bad rep. If you say anything negative most people will label you as a whiner even if you bring valid points and I don't think feeding this stupidity with time and effort will bring me anywhere. I'm just overall very disappointed but of course I will keep playing the game and having fun.
btw I really think David Kim doesn't have the game knowledge required for his job. There was a meeting of progamers with David Kim at Gamescom and as far as I understand he's pretty much clueless and doesn't have the insight needed to understand what's going on. I was told he seems to think pvz late game is fine while every protoss is basically playing every tournament game trying to kill zergs before they have an unbeatable deathball. They basically look at the stats and try to even them out as much as possible but this doesn't make the game good to watch. I still fail to understand how they could think gateways/warpgates are completely fine as they are when it's completely destroying the potential entertainment in protoss matchups. Watch last GSL final if you want a valid example.
I still think its a good thing that you came forward to express your opinion. No matter what some people may think, you don't need to be an expert in a certain domain to make an educated opinion, though it helps. And while the beta is still beta and the game is still in development, its easy to recognize bad ideas and concepts when you see them, I wish more pro gamers like you came forward to express these opinions about such ideas.
I also find it highly disturbing that the man behind the design of the game is so disconnected from it and relies so much on statistics and internal data, when watching and playing the game could provide much more insight, and better help with making it more spectacular and better to play, in ways that cold hard numbers really can't convey.
Keep it up, your opinion is valuable.
Edit: And the reason why I agree with ClouD, even though I may not play at a very high level, I can recognize it when I see it, I am smart enough to not comment on balance at my level, and I can understand and differentiate between good units/concepts and bad ones. And what I see in HoTS is a bunch of really weird and broken ideas and concepts, some which don't even blend well with a particular race, some that synergize too well with the race's strengths, but most just make the game more boring and simple. Yes you can change numbers all you want, but some ideas are just not going to work no matter what, or even if you force them in they will always feel forced and awkward.
I agree 100%, that instead of giving terrans easier units, they should be working on incorporating more complexity and difficulty into protoss and zerg. The beauty of BW, wasn't that people could do everything at once, it was that they had to chose what to do and when to do it, smartly allocate their APM and multi-tasking, all of which made games even more spectacular when you saw action happen consistently and fluidly at 3-4 locations at the same time, while macro was also going on in the background.
Units like the BH and Warhound won't change that, what is more spectacular, seeing small groups of BH/WH a-move into other small groups of immortals/stalkers in 3-4 locations, or seeing 3 drops in different locations + a main army of bio, all being microed almost constantly? Granted one is definitely harder to pull of then the other, but also much more rewarding when you see it happen or when performed well.
SC2 often lacks that, and its quite a shame because you can get a real kick out of a game when there is so much back and forth action going on across the map that even the casters + observer are having a hard time keeping up with it (never mid the players).
|
On August 21 2012 19:19 regiment wrote:
* The Battle Cruisers speed boost will be removed, Battle Cruisers will have increased damage
Errr I,.. uhhhh well, ... you see... look ..ummmmmm.... well... oh :/
(Literally my reaction reading that line)
BC's don't seem used very much but it seems to me when they come out they fucking stay out, those things are tough as fuck and kick some serious ass, I'm kind of lost here - can someone tell me how they are weak (except build time, cost) ? Very confused right here - I fear the shit out of those fucking things.
|
On August 22 2012 17:21 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 16:53 boxman22 wrote:On August 22 2012 16:01 Dustin_Butthead wrote:On August 22 2012 15:00 boxman22 wrote: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. It's not a better indicator because, as you said, it's subjective. People's emotions are easily swayed into only looking for data that supports their own point. I'm probably guilty of it as well. But at least trying to use data is better than large generalizations. If you can't compare top performers across tournaments then there is literally no way of comparing. And the fact that one person can win everything (or if you'd like, 3, one for each race) is not a good measure of volatility at all. Why would other people's "skill levels" vary so widely that only the top performer is constant? And if you want to make the qualification about race and playstyle differences then the point is COMPLETELY moot. Then there's no way to ever prove that BW is volatile in the slightest. You've basically defined not volatile as volatile and said it's statistically unable to be studied. MMA tore apart zergs and terrans so when there weren't many good toss he won. When he won his gsl he played only terrans. If you want to explain volatility you can do it for SC2 as well. People just don't like their closely held beliefs challenged. Hey, I gave you tendencies as to why the stats might not be what they appear. I didn't mean to imply all of these would hold at all times, just that they could influence the result. Looking at GSL winners is a ridiculous way to measure volatility in any case. Personally I think it's obvious from the games that 'metagame' imbalance issues plus innate volatility of many match-ups (PvP, ZvZ) lead to situations where it's really hard to decide who will win any given tournament. Yes, if the skill differences are high then it's easy, but don't tell me you can say which one of, say, Seed Creator Squirtle Puzzle Parting Genius San Oz MC is a strong favourite to win a tournament over the other. I mean, just look at the games: PvZ is heavily dependent on guessing all-ins and vortexes, TvZ on guessing third/fourth CC, mirror match-ups depend a lot on openings as well. TvP has some luck factors with regards to drops and army positioning that's manageable to a degree, but not completely so. A player like Flash can get ridiculous records in proleague against top tier opposition, meanwhile MVP is hardly even a favorite when playing Vortix just because of TvZ being silly.
The GSL winner thing was a first brush at volatility data to all the people who say Flash wins everything. No he doesn't. Different people win tournaments at about the same rate in SC2 and BW. (Edit: This also holds with saying only Bonjwas win things in BW, then there are hell of a lot of bonjwas eh?)
The second one is the one that matters more. I made it slightly harder for SC2 by going over the course of a longer time period (so that you can't say the format of GSL saves people, over even 1 gsl you can drop from Code S to out, but just to make it even more difficult you can use 2 GSLs to make certain of turnover), but from any tournament to the next in BW, there's more volatility than most 2 month periods of the GSL.
As per foreign tournaments, I don't think they count in comparing volatility. Traveling and playing starcraft well in a completely different setting from what you're used to is VERY difficult and the fact that MVP still could win is a testament to just how good he is. It's something BW pros never had to face.
Again if PvZ, PvP, ZvZ were so dependent on guessing, why would there be such little turnover in any 2 GSL period? Good protoss beat bad zerg, good zerg beat bad protoss, etc.
The Flash dominance in Proleague thing is also not entirely fair. You only have to play one match and you're playing on your favorite (or at least maps your race/playstyle is favored) maps. "Aces" in GSTL are expected not just to win the first map they play, but also face sniper after sniper on maps they aren't favored.
Edit: Also looking at MLG championships, 2011 champ -> Winter Champ 6 of same top 16 (in a tournament where you have no preparation) Winter Champ -> Spring Champ, 8 of same top 16. It doesn't seem like there's all too much randomness when the same people do well in tournaments over and over again...
|
On August 22 2012 18:10 Cabinet Sanchez 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
Errr I,.. uhhhh well, ... you see... look ..ummmmmm.... well... oh :/ (Literally my reaction reading that line) BC's don't seem used very much but it seems to me when they come out they fucking stay out, those things are tough as fuck and kick some serious ass, I'm kind of lost here - can someone tell me how they are weak (except build time, cost) ? Very confused right here - I fear the shit out of those fucking things.
They changed their damage from 8 to 6 in a patch a while ago, I think primarily because of concerns for team play and free for all. Ever since they have not been used as much, except as a late-game transition where they are weak until critical mass. If Battle Cruisers have serious weaknesses, but are stronger than they are now, a place opens up for more BC rushes, mixing in BCs with your late-game army, and so on. Of course, the danger is that mass BC is impossible to defeat, which is somewhat of an issue with the game in general. (ultimate compositions having so few weaknesses)
|
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.
As multiple people stated in the battlereport thread which came out about a week ago, the problem with the Warhound and the Battle Hellion is that they aren't mech units. They are 'metallic' bio units basically. One is the firebat and the other is a marauder. The movement speed, animation, attack speed just seem off. The way to use the unit is exactly the same as mechnical units. Blizzard have completely misunderstood the intention of mech play with the addition of these units. Especially the auto targeting bullshit.
Also don't take my post as an "op" whine - I'm a scrub at the game, I care more about watching than playing and these units at least appear as if they will be AWFUL for good, watchable, competitive play. They really do, for all intents and purposes appear like 1a bio units in a mech skin. Regardless of the stats for these units, the problem is the type of gameplay they will foster will be kind of ... well boring and shitty.
|
On August 22 2012 18:14 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 18:10 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:On August 21 2012 19:19 regiment wrote:
* The Battle Cruisers speed boost will be removed, Battle Cruisers will have increased damage
Errr I,.. uhhhh well, ... you see... look ..ummmmmm.... well... oh :/ (Literally my reaction reading that line) BC's don't seem used very much but it seems to me when they come out they fucking stay out, those things are tough as fuck and kick some serious ass, I'm kind of lost here - can someone tell me how they are weak (except build time, cost) ? Very confused right here - I fear the shit out of those fucking things. They changed their damage from 8 to 6 in a patch a while ago, I think primarily because of concerns for team play and free for all. Ever since they have not been used as much, except as a late-game transition where they are weak until critical mass. If Battle Cruisers have serious weakness, but are stronger than they are now, a place opens up for more BC rushes, mixing in BCs with your late-game army, and so on. Of course, the danger is that mass BC is impossible to defeat, which is somewhat of an issue with the game in general. (ultimate compositions having so few weaknesses)
No. BCs were nerfed because of the 1-base BC all-in was a bit too strong.
|
On August 21 2012 20:56 NATO wrote:
Lol, a toss player complaining about detection? They have the best detection in the game, combined with the best cloaked unit in the game.
Not to go completely op vs op, he said she said but what the flying fuck are you talking about?
Detection for Terran = Raven, Missle Turret, Ghost EMP (kinda), Scan (with an incredibly large range and surprisingly long duration) ........... and scan is the most important one there "oh fuck, I forgot to build detection, let me just press this simple oops I forgot button"
No good sir but no, Protoss does not, in any way have the best detection in the game. If a terran forgets, wait for 50 energy, phew. If a Protoss fucks up it can be completely game ending.
|
On August 22 2012 18:14 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 18:10 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:On August 21 2012 19:19 regiment wrote:
* The Battle Cruisers speed boost will be removed, Battle Cruisers will have increased damage
Errr I,.. uhhhh well, ... you see... look ..ummmmmm.... well... oh :/ (Literally my reaction reading that line) BC's don't seem used very much but it seems to me when they come out they fucking stay out, those things are tough as fuck and kick some serious ass, I'm kind of lost here - can someone tell me how they are weak (except build time, cost) ? Very confused right here - I fear the shit out of those fucking things. They changed their damage from 8 to 6 in a patch a while ago, I think primarily because of concerns for team play and free for all. Ever since they have not been used as much, except as a late-game transition where they are weak until critical mass. If Battle Cruisers have serious weakness, but are stronger than they are now, a place opens up for more BC rushes, mixing in BCs with your late-game army, and so on. Of course, the danger is that mass BC is impossible to defeat, which is somewhat of an issue with the game in general. (ultimate compositions having so few weaknesses)
That last sentence is my issue exactly. If you are too slow on upgrades as P and don't have enough stalkers / phoenix - a certain amount of BC's can utterly maul you - and my god do they seem hard to actually knock down - such a tough unit. I won't deny it's kind of cool - since the BC is such an iconic looking capital ship but it sucks as a mid skill player. (mind you it seems like pros have similar problems as me with the things if someone manages to sneak more than 3 or 4 out)
|
Battlecruisers currently lack good counters from the ground and still perform very well against a wide array of unit types. We're aware that it is not easy to get battlecruisers out for the cost, but at the same time, it is possible in both 1v1s and team games to create stalemate situations to bring them out. Overall, we feel that battlecruisers are too strong for their cost, and the terran-forced stalemate situations are causing less interesting gameplay. We will be lowering their damage against ground units from 10 to 8.
From Blizzard's situation report. I guess I mostly remembered it correctly. Also, for some reason I thought that they changed the damage from 8 to 6 instead of 10 to 8. And they have increased the speed of the battlecruiser in patch 1.3, already making it easier to use along the lines of the removed speed boost in HotS.
|
i like the damage increase, while they are not bad now, i want them to be a better units, however i'm not a fan of their puny multiple laser, BW bc were more intimidating
|
On August 22 2012 02:05 Evangelist wrote:
Single target A move units (hi Warhound) are crazy easy to balance. It's a game of numbers and since there's no multiplication implicit to a Warhound deathball they scale linearly with the only limits being the quantized number of shots required to destroy a particular unit. If the problem with the Warhound is that it's too easy to A move, is the problem the Warhound itself (ie taking too many shots to kill and thus absorbing fire for higher DPS units) or is it the time of availability? Is it the sheer damage output? Does it fill a niche other units don't fill? Does it have a reason for being there?
Congratulations on not getting it *at all*
This paragraph you wrote is a perfect example of Blizzard thinking, forget the *design* of the unit and focus on the numbers.
It's how the unit is used, what it's abilities are, how and what it attacks. The Warhound is the very definition of a mindless unit which auto-targets what it's intended to disperse. It requires no thinking, at all - it's only weakness is air units (of which Protoss doesn't have a huge quantity of good air to ground units)
Fiddling with numbers is meaningless when the design is wrong. I never even played more than a few hours of BW and over 2 years of watching pro games, reading this site - it's very easy to understand why some pros are disillusioned with the game. The design needs to be clever - not just even.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
