|
On December 03 2012 18:31 ELA wrote:Infested Terrans are very easy to spam as well, compared to Auto Turrets for instance An Auto turret requires a full hex of clear space or it cannot be deployed, whereas Infested Terrans you can just spam out be there space or not, the spell will just automaticly spawn the IT in the closest possible position to where you click ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CsZ4D.jpg) I dunno, it's just one more thing that makes the Raven feel much more clonky compared to the much easier to use Infestor Although I would prefer it how the Ravens work, so that at least you have to at least show a little speed and precision to deploy free units fast
What if auto turrets did not require as large a placement requirement like infested Terrans?
|
On December 04 2012 03:45 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 18:31 ELA wrote:Infested Terrans are very easy to spam as well, compared to Auto Turrets for instance An Auto turret requires a full hex of clear space or it cannot be deployed, whereas Infested Terrans you can just spam out be there space or not, the spell will just automaticly spawn the IT in the closest possible position to where you click I dunno, it's just one more thing that makes the Raven feel much more clonky compared to the much easier to use Infestor Although I would prefer it how the Ravens work, so that at least you have to at least show a little speed and precision to deploy free units fast What if auto turrets did not require as large a placement requirement like infested Terrans?
well... autoturrets don't scale with upgrades
|
On December 04 2012 01:09 R3DT1D3 wrote:In other words, Blizzard is saying that Terran should 2 rax or turtle 30 minutes for mass Ravens and Protoss should won-won-won push or turtle 30 minutes for mass carrier. HOTS can't get here quickly enough 
u either allin as terran in hots vs any non terran who has a brain or u lose, its even worse than wol atm 
|
On December 04 2012 03:37 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 14:42 TheDwf wrote:On December 03 2012 14:36 ETisME wrote:
I generally disagree. It's not interesting to watch how zerg is contained in 2 bases while the terran goes safe quick 3rd. The games usually led to different kind of 2 bases all in or zerg's roach baneling bust too A Zerg being contained by 6 Hellions was doing so willingly, because he had the choice to make 3 Roaches to get rid of said contain. Yes and this is all it takes. Hell, even just making extra queens is sufficient with good building placement.
Yeah, building a wall breakes a contain 
|
So... 70 health on eggs then? 
|
So what he is saying is.. "want balanced sc2? spend more money and buy hots!"...lol balance DLC.
|
On December 04 2012 04:16 Twilight Sparkle wrote:So... 70 health on eggs then?
No, 79 is more like it. Raven patch will be reversed when mvp wins his next tournament.
|
On December 04 2012 03:45 zhurai wrote:Show nested quote +5. Buff Bio in the late game - with the addition of new units in HotS, we feel Bio in the late game is a bit weak. -5 bunker build time? -1 damage on the fungal growth? seriously these "Hey we're going to nerf X" has no meaning if they actually don't do anything about it, (I'm not too optimistic given their past record)
Bio buff:
Marines are reduced in size to 90% so you can stack them even more for insane "dps per area". Maybe they give them bikes to ride on for more speed (they do like to add speed to units).
Infestor nerf:
Infestors are changed to bright pink color so everyone knows instantly what to target.[/sarcasm off]
Honestly it is really sad to see too many people read this "declaration of intent" by some dude and then gather around the fire to sing the "praise almighty Blizzard" song of the stupid worshipper.
|
On December 04 2012 04:32 Geneq wrote:So what he is saying is.. "want balanced sc2? spend more money and buy hots!"...lol balance DLC.
I think its more like:
“Ok, this unit is pretty fucked up, but you all proved it to us to late. We can’t reinvent the WoL metagame and balance HotS at the same time. We will lose track of what we are doing and remove the marine by mistake. So we are going to nerf the unit back to normal in HotS.”
|
On December 04 2012 05:09 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 03:45 zhurai wrote:5. Buff Bio in the late game - with the addition of new units in HotS, we feel Bio in the late game is a bit weak. -5 bunker build time? 4. Nerf Infestor quite heavily -1 damage on the fungal growth? seriously these "Hey we're going to nerf X" has no meaning if they actually don't do anything about it, (I'm not too optimistic given their past record) Bio buff: Marines are reduced in size to 90% so you can stack them even more for insane "dps per area". Maybe they give them bikes to ride on for more speed (they do like to add speed to units). Infestor nerf:Infestors are changed to bright pink color so everyone knows instantly what to target.[/sarcasm off] Honestly it is really sad to see too many people read this "declaration of intent" by some dude and then gather around the fire to sing the "praise almighty Blizzard" song of the stupid worshipper.
It's even more sad to see each and every announcement by Blizzard met with the darkest of cynicism. Apparently you can't be optimistic without being a stupid Blizzard worshipper.
|
Northern Ireland23760 Posts
Well yes, somebody is only right or wrong on an issue if it's based in some kind of rationale, as I consider it. I mean just throwing out assertions with no context isn't debating anything and isn't laudable at all regardless of you being correct or not.
I was 100% right about the warhound based purely on the design and my interpretations of why this was bad design. Got called out for abstract theorycrafting, and 'wait and see', 'have faith.' Waited until HoTS was out, went to watch the streams, saw Warhounds raping everything, in fact in the numbers they used to balance the unit, it was stronger than I'd anticipated.
I'm not laudable for being right, but for why. If I had flipped a coin, with tails corresponding to 'it'll be OP' and heads 'it'll be ok/acceptable and posted it yeah, I may have been right but without the logic underpinning why, you cannot prevent the issue coming up again. You need people who can think of balance and design in this way, regardless of their skill levels etc.
We need Blizz to at least listen more to the likes Kawaiirice and other pros who put Nostradamus to shame with their preemptive analysis of how the Queen change would influence the TvZ metagame for the worse. They did this LONG before this happened, with the additional advantage over say, me of playing the game at a high level too.
Blizzard aren't producing bad decisions due to having bad intentions, it's entirely rooted in how they are trying to achieve these overarching goals.
|
Huh...interesting IT change.
Maybe Blizz was looking at 80hp as one psi storm killing eggs before they hatch? But even then, you would have to land storm right as eggs came out..doable but expecting too much? Idk
also 80hp is 2 tank shots, the same as it is with 100hp, and seeing as tanks are primary splash for terran, can't see how that would help them. But then again maybe it's not a v terran focused change? more v protoss focused because IT spam prevents proper blink under BL? Not sure what to think about this change and so many questions have arisen from it that
a)Blizzard didn't think the hp nerf through; maybe should be ~75 or 70
or
b)Blizzard just testing around (most likely)
Raven seeker missile change seems nice, and will perhaps promote the raven as a good terran late game unit v zerg, but depends on if the raven is actually good and people don't use it or if it sucks and promoting its usage doesn't make it any better.
Additionally, maybe Antiga Shipyard isn't the best map to test this out on, at least, from a protoss perspective. PvZ seems pretty difficult on this matchup with there being no connection b/t 3rd and nat.
Interesting changes overall...
|
I am expecting the absolute worst proposed changes yet from blizzard in the next few weeks.
|
making ultras good vs all ground is music to my ears
Agreed. Rather than simply buffing ultra's against certain units or general stats I'd like them to utilize their new physics changes to do something similar to the following.
- Stampede: a charge-like ability that crushes opponents units (rather than pathing around) doing AOE damage to all units underneath and tossing them into the air (similar to death animation).
or
- Adding AOE damage to the current burrowed charge when the ultra emerges from the ground tossing the opponents units into air. Imagine an ultra unburrowing under a bunch of marines tossing them into the air causing some level of AOE damage.
This way even if we loose much or all of the AOE from infestors we get some back using much cooler more zergy mechanics. The charge mechanic or burrow mechanic likely shouldn't be a passive ability so that some level of micro is required so that it is not to strong and it is more interesting.
Just a thought on possible methods of Ultra buff that could add something interesting to the game rather than a simple stats buff against units.
|
On December 04 2012 05:17 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 05:09 Rabiator wrote:On December 04 2012 03:45 zhurai wrote:5. Buff Bio in the late game - with the addition of new units in HotS, we feel Bio in the late game is a bit weak. -5 bunker build time? 4. Nerf Infestor quite heavily -1 damage on the fungal growth? seriously these "Hey we're going to nerf X" has no meaning if they actually don't do anything about it, (I'm not too optimistic given their past record) Bio buff: Marines are reduced in size to 90% so you can stack them even more for insane "dps per area". Maybe they give them bikes to ride on for more speed (they do like to add speed to units). Infestor nerf:Infestors are changed to bright pink color so everyone knows instantly what to target.[/sarcasm off] Honestly it is really sad to see too many people read this "declaration of intent" by some dude and then gather around the fire to sing the "praise almighty Blizzard" song of the stupid worshipper. It's even more sad to see each and every announcement by Blizzard met with the darkest of cynicism.
It is a bummer, since they are doing a ton of stuff people have been asking for.
Well except make Hellbats make the transformers noise when they change, do back flips when they transform while moving or make them punch fire with their awesome shield fists. But I don’t need changes just for me.(god it would be awesome)
|
Northern Ireland23760 Posts
On December 04 2012 05:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 05:17 rd wrote:On December 04 2012 05:09 Rabiator wrote:On December 04 2012 03:45 zhurai wrote:5. Buff Bio in the late game - with the addition of new units in HotS, we feel Bio in the late game is a bit weak. -5 bunker build time? 4. Nerf Infestor quite heavily -1 damage on the fungal growth? seriously these "Hey we're going to nerf X" has no meaning if they actually don't do anything about it, (I'm not too optimistic given their past record) Bio buff: Marines are reduced in size to 90% so you can stack them even more for insane "dps per area". Maybe they give them bikes to ride on for more speed (they do like to add speed to units). Infestor nerf:Infestors are changed to bright pink color so everyone knows instantly what to target.[/sarcasm off] Honestly it is really sad to see too many people read this "declaration of intent" by some dude and then gather around the fire to sing the "praise almighty Blizzard" song of the stupid worshipper. It's even more sad to see each and every announcement by Blizzard met with the darkest of cynicism. It is a bummer, since they are doing a ton of stuff people have been asking for. Well except make Hellbats make the transformers noise when they change, do back flips when they transform while moving or make them punch fire with their awesome shield fists. But I don’t need changes just for me.(god it would be awesome)
Blizzard are doing stuff wrong because they are approaching it wrong. I've actually said I think David Kim knows what we want, vaguely, and roughly why and loves Starcraft/wants it to succeed. However Blizz don't seem to get the underpinning relationship/link between why we want it/how we want it achieved.
For example, I want fewer deathballs. Pathing is something that I expect to remain untouched, maybe it's complicated to re-code everything or whatever. In terms of say, changing unit clumping for example, I can logically comprehend why Blizzard wouldn't do that, even if they know what the problem is. If you change unit clumping, you change how every single composition in the game interacts. It might be better, but that will lead to an absolute age where you're not trying to design cool features, but merely trying to rebalance nearly everything in terms of the numbers.
My solution to that issue, is figuring out how to address why people actually get pissed off at deathballs, and think of ways to factor that in without touching the engine, or say, macro mechanics. You can do this with very, very simple changes to execute. I've proposed a 'solution' for at least part of the Protoss deathball problem.
1. Why it annoys the player losing to a deathball - The idea of the opposition player having to put in much less work, relative to you. I mean, it's why I think at a design level PvT/TvP is the best functioning matchup, and I practice it from both sides, but wow playing Terran can be frustrating. In the case of PvZ, it's not not being able to beat BL/Infestor that's inherently annoying (although it's hard as hell to engage too), it's that BL/Infestor and consideration of it has reduced modern PvZ down to a level where it's close to just about your ability to execute a timing attack well.
2. How to fix that, without affecting core design. - You make it harder to control for the Protoss player. However there is a net tradeoff in terms of rewarding guys who are good at unit control, and happen to play Protoss (relative to other Protoss as opposed to Terrans).
3. How you would apply the concept- I feel creating a more divergent range of movespeeds in Protoss would not 'fix' deathballs and clumping. However, they would create a bit more skill so that Terrans get less frustrated by losing to A-move armies, but decent Protoss players ALSO get less frustrated because they feel there is more to do in terms of getting an advantage through their army control.
4. How you would specifically do it- In this instance I feel making Collosus way slower, and Zealots have 'Zealot legs' so their passive speed is faster. Part of the reason the Collosus is the only part of the deathball most people actually really hate, it's to do with the difference between Squirtle's Collosus, and say, my Collusus not being relatively large compared to our different skill levels.
5. Why this would improve/mitigate the problem - Divergent movespeeds make stuff harder to move around in a ball. Consider how the deathball operates, with the addition of Templar. They move so much slower than the rest, that you have to stop and reposition every so often, if you want to keep the entire ball together. A slower collosus at the back, and faster passive speed Zealots at the front will naturally split up more than the same composition with the current move speed relationship. This is why Reavers were balanced, they had huge damage output but were slow. Hence this created future cool synergy between the shuttle and the Reaver. The shuttle covered the Reaver's weaknesses, but still requires sick control to use. (imo unintentional design, but awesome when used)
This inadvertently splits your army a bit better in certain ways, but also adds positional control. I mean in terms of standing power, mech is rather 'deathballish'. The skill in mech play comes from positioning, so adding a little of that element is good. Also, faster Zealots would function in a more versatile way akin to say, Zerglings than as an A-move unit that doesn't reward good charge use. Yeah you can manually do it, but this is quite unintuitive than having a faster average move speed, but a lower peak.
5. Other benefits to the game that may arise- Faster Zealots with less reliance on charge which is autocast, would be more controllable. Setting up Zealot flanks would be a more highly rewarded skill.
|
On December 04 2012 05:39 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 05:22 Plansix wrote:On December 04 2012 05:17 rd wrote:On December 04 2012 05:09 Rabiator wrote:On December 04 2012 03:45 zhurai wrote:5. Buff Bio in the late game - with the addition of new units in HotS, we feel Bio in the late game is a bit weak. -5 bunker build time? 4. Nerf Infestor quite heavily -1 damage on the fungal growth? seriously these "Hey we're going to nerf X" has no meaning if they actually don't do anything about it, (I'm not too optimistic given their past record) Bio buff: Marines are reduced in size to 90% so you can stack them even more for insane "dps per area". Maybe they give them bikes to ride on for more speed (they do like to add speed to units). Infestor nerf:Infestors are changed to bright pink color so everyone knows instantly what to target.[/sarcasm off] Honestly it is really sad to see too many people read this "declaration of intent" by some dude and then gather around the fire to sing the "praise almighty Blizzard" song of the stupid worshipper. It's even more sad to see each and every announcement by Blizzard met with the darkest of cynicism. It is a bummer, since they are doing a ton of stuff people have been asking for. Well except make Hellbats make the transformers noise when they change, do back flips when they transform while moving or make them punch fire with their awesome shield fists. But I don’t need changes just for me.(god it would be awesome) Blizzard are doing stuff wrong because they are approaching it wrong. I've actually said I think David Kim knows what we want, vaguely, and roughly why and loves Starcraft/wants it to succeed. However Blizz don't seem to get the underpinning relationship/link between why we want it/how we want it achieved. For example, I want fewer deathballs. Pathing is something that I expect to remain untouched, maybe it's complicated to re-code everything or whatever. In terms of say, changing unit clumping for example, I can logically comprehend why Blizzard wouldn't do that, even if they know what the problem is. If you change unit clumping, you change how every single composition in the game interacts. It might be better, but that will lead to an absolute age where you're not trying to design cool features, but merely trying to rebalance nearly everything in terms of the numbers. My solution to that issue, is figuring out how to address why people actually get pissed off at deathballs, and think of ways to factor that in without touching the engine, or say, macro mechanics. You can do this with very, very simple changes to execute. I've proposed a 'solution' for at least part of the Protoss deathball problem. 1. Why it annoys the player losing to a deathball - The idea of the opposition player having to put in much less work, relative to you. I mean, it's why I think at a design level PvT/TvP is the best functioning matchup, and I practice it from both sides, but wow playing Terran can be frustrating. In the case of PvZ, it's not not being able to beat BL/Infestor that's inherently annoying (although it's hard as hell to engage too), it's that BL/Infestor and consideration of it has reduced modern PvZ down to a level where it's close to just about your ability to execute a timing attack well. 2. How to fix that, without affecting core design. - You make it harder to control for the Protoss player. However there is a net tradeoff in terms of rewarding guys who are good at unit control, and happen to play Protoss (relative to other Protoss as opposed to Terrans). 3. How you would apply the concept- I feel creating a more divergent range of movespeeds in Protoss would not 'fix' deathballs and clumping. However, they would create a bit more skill so that Terrans get less frustrated by losing to A-move armies, but decent Protoss players ALSO get less frustrated because they feel there is more to do in terms of getting an advantage through their army control. 4. How you would specifically do it- In this instance I feel making Collosus way slower, and Zealots have 'Zealot legs' so their passive speed is faster. Part of the reason the Collosus is the only part of the deathball most people actually really hate, it's to do with the difference between Squirtle's Collosus, and say, my Collusus not being relatively large compared to our different skill levels. 5. Why this would improve/mitigate the problem - Divergent movespeeds make stuff harder to move around in a ball. Consider how the deathball operates, with the addition of Templar. They move so much slower than the rest, that you have to stop and reposition every so often, if you want to keep the entire ball together. A slower collosus at the back, and faster passive speed Zealots at the front will naturally split up more than the same composition with the current move speed relationship. This is why Reavers were balanced, they had huge damage output but were slow. Hence this created future cool synergy between the shuttle and the Reaver. The shuttle covered the Reaver's weaknesses, but still requires sick control to use. (imo unintentional design, but awesome when used) This inadvertently splits your army a bit better in certain ways, but also adds positional control. I mean in terms of standing power, mech is rather 'deathballish'. The skill in mech play comes from positioning, so adding a little of that element is good. Also, faster Zealots would function in a more versatile way akin to say, Zerglings than as an A-move unit that doesn't reward good charge use. Yeah you can manually do it, but this is quite unintuitive than having a faster average move speed, but a lower peak. 5. Other benefits to the game that may arise- Faster Zealots with less reliance on charge which is autocast, would be more controllable. Setting up Zealot flanks would be a more highly rewarded skill.
Wombat, no offence, but you dislike everything Blizzard does. If they announced that they were giving everyone HotS for free as an apology for the balance mistakes for WoL, you would be pissed that it took them so long to admit it.
They are never going to please you, so why bother trying?
|
On December 04 2012 05:20 Innovation wrote:Agreed. Rather than simply buffing ultra's against certain units or general stats I'd like them to utilize their new physics changes to do something similar to the following. - Stampede: a charge-like ability that crushes opponents units (rather than pathing around) doing AOE damage to all units underneath and tossing them into the air (similar to death animation). or - Adding AOE damage to the current burrowed charge when the ultra emerges from the ground tossing the opponents units into air. Imagine an ultra unburrowing under a bunch of marines tossing them into the air causing some level of AOE damage. This way even if we loose much or all of the AOE from infestors we get some back using much cooler more zergy mechanics. The charge mechanic or burrow mechanic likely shouldn't be a passive ability so that some level of micro is required so that it is not to strong and it is more interesting. Just a thought on possible methods of Ultra buff that could add something interesting to the game rather than a simple stats buff against units.
I like the way you think, friend. Adding an AOE component to the charge would give the terran an incentive to split his units when he sees it coming, to avoid the worst of the damage. Contrast with stuff like fungal which, the instant the enemy clicks, micro ceases.
Starcraft badly needs more 'in battle' micro and less focus on pre-splitting or sniping things before an engagement.
|
Does anyone else think the issues with infestors revolve a lot around the lack of anti-air options in the zerg arsenal/general lack of versatility in anti-air options. I'm aware that in theory there are a lot of options for zerg anti-air, but they're basically all crappy for one reason or another (hydra - slow, fragile, mutalisk - expensive, fragile, queen - weak, slow, corruptor - expensive, useless once air threat is gone). Infestors are basically the only way to reliably deal with harass (mostly air-based) that doesn't become totally useless once your opponent shifts out of that phase of play or you need to step out of your base.
For the record, as a zerg player, I find the infestor/broodlord late-game just as boring as I'm sure P/T players do, but barring some very specific early and mid-game tech choices by opponents, zerg just really doesn't have the unit versatility to reliably throw much else out there.
|
Northern Ireland23760 Posts
On December 04 2012 06:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 05:39 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 04 2012 05:22 Plansix wrote:On December 04 2012 05:17 rd wrote:On December 04 2012 05:09 Rabiator wrote:On December 04 2012 03:45 zhurai wrote:5. Buff Bio in the late game - with the addition of new units in HotS, we feel Bio in the late game is a bit weak. -5 bunker build time? 4. Nerf Infestor quite heavily -1 damage on the fungal growth? seriously these "Hey we're going to nerf X" has no meaning if they actually don't do anything about it, (I'm not too optimistic given their past record) Bio buff: Marines are reduced in size to 90% so you can stack them even more for insane "dps per area". Maybe they give them bikes to ride on for more speed (they do like to add speed to units). Infestor nerf:Infestors are changed to bright pink color so everyone knows instantly what to target.[/sarcasm off] Honestly it is really sad to see too many people read this "declaration of intent" by some dude and then gather around the fire to sing the "praise almighty Blizzard" song of the stupid worshipper. It's even more sad to see each and every announcement by Blizzard met with the darkest of cynicism. It is a bummer, since they are doing a ton of stuff people have been asking for. Well except make Hellbats make the transformers noise when they change, do back flips when they transform while moving or make them punch fire with their awesome shield fists. But I don’t need changes just for me.(god it would be awesome) Blizzard are doing stuff wrong because they are approaching it wrong. I've actually said I think David Kim knows what we want, vaguely, and roughly why and loves Starcraft/wants it to succeed. However Blizz don't seem to get the underpinning relationship/link between why we want it/how we want it achieved. For example, I want fewer deathballs. Pathing is something that I expect to remain untouched, maybe it's complicated to re-code everything or whatever. In terms of say, changing unit clumping for example, I can logically comprehend why Blizzard wouldn't do that, even if they know what the problem is. If you change unit clumping, you change how every single composition in the game interacts. It might be better, but that will lead to an absolute age where you're not trying to design cool features, but merely trying to rebalance nearly everything in terms of the numbers. My solution to that issue, is figuring out how to address why people actually get pissed off at deathballs, and think of ways to factor that in without touching the engine, or say, macro mechanics. You can do this with very, very simple changes to execute. I've proposed a 'solution' for at least part of the Protoss deathball problem. 1. Why it annoys the player losing to a deathball - The idea of the opposition player having to put in much less work, relative to you. I mean, it's why I think at a design level PvT/TvP is the best functioning matchup, and I practice it from both sides, but wow playing Terran can be frustrating. In the case of PvZ, it's not not being able to beat BL/Infestor that's inherently annoying (although it's hard as hell to engage too), it's that BL/Infestor and consideration of it has reduced modern PvZ down to a level where it's close to just about your ability to execute a timing attack well. 2. How to fix that, without affecting core design. - You make it harder to control for the Protoss player. However there is a net tradeoff in terms of rewarding guys who are good at unit control, and happen to play Protoss (relative to other Protoss as opposed to Terrans). 3. How you would apply the concept- I feel creating a more divergent range of movespeeds in Protoss would not 'fix' deathballs and clumping. However, they would create a bit more skill so that Terrans get less frustrated by losing to A-move armies, but decent Protoss players ALSO get less frustrated because they feel there is more to do in terms of getting an advantage through their army control. 4. How you would specifically do it- In this instance I feel making Collosus way slower, and Zealots have 'Zealot legs' so their passive speed is faster. Part of the reason the Collosus is the only part of the deathball most people actually really hate, it's to do with the difference between Squirtle's Collosus, and say, my Collusus not being relatively large compared to our different skill levels. 5. Why this would improve/mitigate the problem - Divergent movespeeds make stuff harder to move around in a ball. Consider how the deathball operates, with the addition of Templar. They move so much slower than the rest, that you have to stop and reposition every so often, if you want to keep the entire ball together. A slower collosus at the back, and faster passive speed Zealots at the front will naturally split up more than the same composition with the current move speed relationship. This is why Reavers were balanced, they had huge damage output but were slow. Hence this created future cool synergy between the shuttle and the Reaver. The shuttle covered the Reaver's weaknesses, but still requires sick control to use. (imo unintentional design, but awesome when used) This inadvertently splits your army a bit better in certain ways, but also adds positional control. I mean in terms of standing power, mech is rather 'deathballish'. The skill in mech play comes from positioning, so adding a little of that element is good. Also, faster Zealots would function in a more versatile way akin to say, Zerglings than as an A-move unit that doesn't reward good charge use. Yeah you can manually do it, but this is quite unintuitive than having a faster average move speed, but a lower peak. 5. Other benefits to the game that may arise- Faster Zealots with less reliance on charge which is autocast, would be more controllable. Setting up Zealot flanks would be a more highly rewarded skill. Wombat, no offence, but you dislike everything Blizzard does. If they announced that they were giving everyone HotS for free as an apology for the balance mistakes for WoL, you would be pissed that it took them so long to admit it. They are never going to please you, so why bother trying?
It's not about pleasing me, at all man In fact, the kind of problem I'm trying to get across regarding Blizzard and the Community, is kind of analogous to how I don't think you're getting my point. You're not being rude, or disagreeing I just don't think you actually get the idea itself. I used to play WC3 in which Blizzard rule the domain of balance issues with an iron fist. That was fine as well, as a concept and both in how they made a good game in WC3.
Basically, many of this game's issues are both caused by, but potentially solvable by the community. You don't listen to ideas based on who said them, or in the tone they used, or how many people that are whining. You incorporate good ideas, because they are good ideas. It's not what Blizzard does that annoys people that annoy me, it's that we're constantly trying to second-guess them. If you want to rule your game with an iron fist and just do it your way, fair enough as long as that's clear. If you want to include the community, include the good ideas of the community, or at least acknowledge your thought processes better. Regardless of outcome, more transparency in Blizzard's actual thinking would be nice.
Consider Browder saying he wouldn't change Warpgate fundamentally. I don't mind that, I mean I'd like it to happen but in terms of the ripple effect it would have and the closeness of HoTS now, I can accept that it's difficult as fuck to do. However, it doesn't mean you can't look at other ways of balancing warpgate more subtly, many fucking great ideas are on here to that effect. Most are balanced around creating a tradeoff in having warpgate vs something else, usually increased production from unwarped gates. This solves TWO issues, the idea of expressing an individual philosophy of how you want to play Starcraft, however small, and the idea of enabling Protoss players who are limited by the low macro 'cap' of the race, to push themselves on a bit. Find the good ideas, underpinned by actual reasons or theorycraft, even better if some actual numerical values are there.
Don't just listen to the most vocal minority, if you're going down the road of looking our feedback, select the good stuff. If Blizzard didn't want feedback, they wouldn't be consulting the pro players (unless it's a token move), so it's obvious they're not against the concept of collaborative thinking.
Blizzard's problem is trying to please everyone, but not finding the common grounds of complaint that actually annoy everyone. The idea of Terran being 'hard to learn, impossible to master' is an idea of a good fundamental idea. It is the entire reason Korean Terrans have a quasi-mythological status, they are deities walking among among us in some people's eyes. The other idea that is related here, that other races have corresponding strengths/weaknesses but different kind of designs is fine too, it gives that sense of identity that is an expression of your identity as a player.
Think of it as a problem caused, not by this idea of design asymmetry, but what I'll call
Multi-faceted design asymmetry
-Differences in difficulty of certain aspects of the race, Terran is harder mechanically, Zerg requires other skills
-Differences in macro mechanics, that are tailored around enhancing or fixing holes that are related first part. Protoss is the 'timing attack' race, and chronoboost strengthens this capacity to do timings. Terran can't produce workers as fast as the other races, so need mules to equalise economy. Lategame, Terran has the cool strategical potential to sacrifice mules.
The attempt to achieve 50/50 win ratios with the above 2 reference points at ALL levels
Blizzard's Technical Competence
Considering that their express intention is a 50/50 winratio, and they employ the other aspects of this design asymmetry, it is clear Blizzard have a lot of chops in actually reaching close to 50/50 ratios . I actually have no idea how they've managed to do this. They can clearly design games well if they achieved this goal, because unlike most of my other theories, it mystifies me. There are so many variables that they've managed to balance statistically, that seem inherently contradictory.
However this is at the expense of the MAIN reason that people get annoyed with this game, imo. It's not winning or losing, it's when these things are balanced, but at the expense of variety. It's picking Protoss because you played them in BW, or you like their aesthetics. It's the point you reach where you cannot employ a variety of styles or approaches, due to the constraints of your race, have to go on Team Liquid and steal Parting's builds, just to win games. It's the incredible difficulty of playing Terran to a high level mechanically, but against a Zerg that used to be more prone to pressure and map control techniques slowing them down and losing to BL/Infestor every game.
Variety is what enables every single player, to express their own personal desire, or approach to playing the game. When variety is sacrificed for 50/50 balance across all levels and skills, that's the issue. It's variety in various forms that turns a lot of people off SC2.
Zerg current 'dominance' for the spectator - Yeah some Zerg antifans for sure. Most people were just sick of having to watch Zerg matches. I would have killed for some good PvT lately, my personal favourite matchup, but also haven't seen much TvT, or TvZ at the stages of the tournaments I've tuned into.
Stale metagames Fine in a matchup that is fundamentally 'fair', like PvT. PvT from the T perspective is hard, but there's always a 'shit should have dodged storm better' kind of realisation. PvT is the most balanced matchup at the minute, statistically, but equally one of the better matchups to watch. It's got a stale metagame in terms of the general plan being the same for ages, but the fun in the matchup is execution, trading and the likes. PvZ is stale, but not the kind of matchup you can win by playing straight-up better, it's much more frustrating to be constrained by having to do timing attacks, than it is to play with more midgame aggression and trading. TvZ is the most unfair matchup at least instinctively now, because even when top Terrans are winning, you're never seeing them do it easily, it always seems like they have to play incredibly well, just to compete at all.
'Casual experience- They're actually addressing this, it's all about the problems with Bnet 2.0, but at least they seem to realise this. 'Casuals' maybe won't grind the ladder, but they might hang out and blow off steam. Without clans, and stuff like a better custom system (which they're doing iirc), casuals will not necessarily stay in the game no matter what else you throw at them. All of this stuff is not at the expense of the 'hardcore' players, who will make good use of them too.
The problems come from the clash of these principles, a clash motivated imo by Blizzard trying to deal with to the grievances of the community members, ESPECIALLY the overly loud, vocal whiners. The loud whiners tend to complain about specific things like fungal, and things like that. Often, but not always it's in ignorance, wilful or otherwise to other factors that apply. Blizzard are still capable of great design, but they've changed stuff imo just because of retards in the community spouting nonsense, and it's sad
Thus, when 'nerf fungal' becomes a cacophonous roar in the proverbial ears of Blizzard's employees, they just think fuck it, we'll just nerf fungal.
Finding a way to do this, finding common grounds that enable better design, which improves the experience of both players casual and pro, that enables the game to improve in certain strategic respects, and simultaneously please both the top GSL player, to the bottom of bronze is entirely possible, if you actually know what parts of the game piss them off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
