| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
quebecman77
Canada133 Posts
get something too in your brain , not everyone talk english or i should got a perfect english , nor should i care , you can understand my post just fine , but maybe you have something not in your brain..... btw talk to me in korean or french or spanish if you can , im probably talking 2x your langage kids , and english my worst for write but i can talk it just fine.... | ||
|
Terrasmith
47 Posts
If someone watches SCII at the pro level and understands the game, they can realize that the game is imbalanced at the pro level without ever touching the controls. And they are perfectly qualified to mention this in a public forum. And Terrans asking for nerf to Terran (there have been several) obviously aren't asking for a nerf to make their rankings better. Maybe they just care about watching a balanced game. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On March 22 2013 23:18 DeCoup wrote: As you stated yourself, SC2 is a game where resources are in abundance. The game IS based around timings. There are 3 ways in which units/abilities/etc can be balanced. 1) It can have its timing adjusted. This form of adjustment takes place when a unit is considered balanced at max supply. This can apply to the unit as a whole (eg Depot need for Rax to slow bio pressure) or to the units stats in the way of upgrades (eg blink research time), or the unit/ability/etc it can be moved forward if it wont cause balance problems to give more options in its use (eg Dark Shine build time or overlord speed at hatch). A hypothetical medivac example is making boot an upgrade at techlab. This would have a 2 fold effect. You would have a timing in which a Terran can reactor 2 medivacs with no boosters or 1 medivac with boosters. 2) It can have its stats adjusted. This is performed when the unit is not considered balanced at 200 supply. Good examples of this are the supply cap increase of the Voidray (Even if other adjustments still need to be made I the future), Projectile being added to fungal, or attack range of the Pheonix). A hypothetical medivac example is to increase the cooldown on boosters, or to make the medivac unresponsive to move commands during a boost. Both of these changes Often the adjustments made using this form of balancing can result in the need to perform a timing adjustment also in order to maintain balance. For example hydra getting an Offcreep speed increase, but requiring an upgrade to use it. The choice to make this change require an upgrade is most likely to prevent the change from making the unit too powerful at earlier stages of the game, and maintain the pre-existing timings involved. 3) Redesign. This is performed when either the unit can not have its stats/timing adjusted in a way which maintains both balance and the usefulness of the unit/ability, or if the unit/ability is considered redundant in its current form. (Eg the Voidray or Reaper changes). Generally speaking this is the least acceptable form of change as it can have dramatic effects on all matchups and mane timings, altering the gameplay as a whole. It is generally considered better practice to nerf such units/abilities to a point in which they are slightly underpowered or redundant and perform the redesign during the release of an expansion. This is because unlike in a standard patch, it is the expectation that an expansion will have more dramatic effects of gameplay so such large changes can take place without causing disruption to tournaments etc. (The Reaper is a perfect example of this process taking place using this best practice). TLDR: Hopefully what I have pointed out with this post is that generally there are two different ways to make balance changes, and the one you use is based on wether the unit is considered balanced at max supply. This is why 90% of the time you see timing adjustments over stat changes. The effects on the maxed gameplay are minimal when adjusting timings, but can have many implications from stat changes (even +10hp to a unit could have much larger effects than you can initially see). I don't think it is fair to have any negativity towards the use of timing adjustments when possible. edit:Formatting The problem with balancing a game around timings is that you FORCE SOMETHING TO HAPPEN around that timing. Either one player doesnt allow the other player to "get there" or that other player gets to play out his "timing card" and possibly win as a consequence. Since players do have greatly different skill levels these timings are adjusted for the top end mostly and thus might totally ruin the game for players at the bottom end of the scale. Thus adjusting the timing will not really "balance the gameplay" only adjust the opportunities. A possible upgrade for the Medivac speed boost is a perfect example as is the Warp Gate research. These are "must have upgrades" and will be done ASAP. No CHOICE for the players enters into the game. Fiddling around with the timing has always the danger of making them not really worthwile anymore ... as the Reaper in WoL has shown. They were used a lot in the beginning and are useful only at the very very very early part of the game. After Blizzard adjusted the timing they were never ever built anymore because they became useless. What was the problem of the Reapers? Their massive numbers which could stifle the development of the opponent to stop them from reaching the point where Reapers are useless again. So ... the amount was the problem. Fiddling around with unit stats bears the risk of units becoming useless and not really worthwile anymore. This doesnt make them focus so much on timings though. The Infestor seems to be a good example, but the problem wasnt really a timing and rather the effect of massive numbers of the unit, because they are a caster unit and their spells allow them to focus their power at one point in time. Potentially getting EIGHT stimmed Marines for a TWO supply unit without even endangering your own unit is a bit much if you have a lot of them. Now for the big one: Redesign. You are talking about redesign, but you limit yourself to units only. That is not so smart, because the core game design features are the cause for many problems. Just look through the examples above and you might notice that the amount of units is the problem most of the time. Sure, you could adjust that a little bit by making production cycles longer, but would that really change anything? If players wanted to mass these units they could still do it. You could also adjust the cost upwards, but that would make them not worthwile in a game where massive numbers of units are the way to go. IMO the game needs a redesign and not the units themselves! Few Infestors arent a problem, because they wouldnt have a combined energy regeneration of "huge". Few early (WoL-)Reapers wouldnt be a problem, because they couldnt tear down Spine Crawlers and other buildings in a few seconds. Small Medivac drops arent that much of a problem, because the 8 Marines in a single shuttle are killed easier than having 32 of them and they wont tear down the base in an instant. ... The whole point about FEWER UNITS is that players will not use their units for doomsday missions if they cant replace them as easily. Thus big - and IMO exciting - units would become more important (because you can keep them alive more easily compared to a Marine or Zergling) and such things as repair, burrowing for regeneration or microing units to the back whose shields are gone would become important again. They are not really part of pro games anymore and that is bad. The first approach to reducing the numbers of units has to be the removal of all production AND economic speed boosts for all races. Terrans are hit the least by this, but taking out Warp Gate and Chronoboost for Protoss and Inject Larvae for Zerg will change their "core design" a little. Protoss and Zerg need the biggest adjustments, but this is where timings could be used ... at least the production cycle timings. In addition the worker efficiency and the policy of 2 gas geysers per base could be adjusted to further slow down the unit production. A second approach to reducing the numbers of units is to tackle the "unit density problem", which is really a shifting of the balance according to the numbers involved in a battle. The "Stalker vs. Marine" example really shows that. If the balance is acceptable for "few vs. few" and shifts for a "many vs. many" engagement then that concentration of units should be artificially limited to a certain degree as BW did it. 12 units per control group and a spread out unit movement ... while keeping the microing possibility to overcome the "soft cap" on unit density. Mutalisk micro in BW shows that the technology was already there to have super tight formations, but the devs didnt really think it was appropriate to make it easy for the players all the time. A fight with four times the number of units is NOT four times as fun / exciting because the fight will take just as long due to the increased killing speed at the beginning while risking a "lopsided battle" due to one misclick (like not splitting your Marines correctly and losing a big chunk of them). Seeing four Zerglings from two players battle each other is more exciting than seeing 80 Roaches shoot each other ... especially if one player has the skill to win with both his Zerglings alive. FEW Void Rays are ok, because they do not instakill. LOW NUMBERS of Medivacs are ok, because you are less likely to risk them on dangerous "decoy drop missions". FEW Infestors are not a problem, because they have periods without energy compared to a big heap of Infestors where there is always one with enough energy to Fungal. ... ... Less is more! tl;dr Fewer units (for both sides) on the battlefield reduces the "killing speed" and thus makes fun units less overpowered. The core game design needs to be changed to achieve that instead of fiddling around with unit design. - production speed boosts, - economic boosts, - unlimited unit selection and - automatic super tight unit movement ... all need to go! | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
On March 05 2013 09:24 baldgye wrote: Clearly you don't understand the game, as those things are not even close to similar. I agree. Siege takes time. Stim take health. Burrow is a risk, takes time and might get caught... drops are a risk... games are a give and take of these risks and who calculates them better. I totally agree it should cost medivac energy. Like, Scans are not mules, drones are not defense - these ins and outs make Starcraft | ||
|
BerthaG
France74 Posts
| ||
|
GIGGLEBEAR
United States1 Post
On March 05 2013 18:12 Douillos wrote: Well I find HOTs pretty cool to watch. The GSTL pre season was a lot of fun. We continue in the "omg thats gotta hurt, terribl terrible dmg" register, but seing a nice mine go off or an oracle rape a mineral line gives me a big fuckin smile  Like a big storm or a funghal would...I just wonder how many people in this thread are critical of HOTs because they are Zergs and it's been complicated not to infestor themselves to victory. I get that you might have just said this without realizing you sounded condescending....but You do realize that you can be a Zerg player and still understand balance, right? You don't have to hate on Zerg players specifically because of the race they choose to play. The most frustrating thing about being a Zerg player is having other players react to you like you get off on playing an IMBA race (in Wings). I played Zerg because I always have, and probably always will...it's just my thing. I don't hate on people for wanting to play Terran or Protoss, so why hate Zergs? I think it's important to remember that none of us actually BALANCES the game. I just play the units that are presented to me by Blizzard...I can't tell you how many times I've had people tell me (usually after winning a game, before GG's) that they'd like me to apologize for playing an IMBA race. This applies to all races actually...Terrans in HoTS...they just play the units that are given to them...absolutely no reason to be aggressive or condescending to Terran players on ladder. Same with SkyToss. You can be mad as hell at the units (and at blizzard), but don't talk down to other players because they choose to play a different race then you. It sure as shit takes a lot more than "Infestor your way to victory" to win a game as Zerg and anyone who says otherwise is choosing to be difficult and ignorant for the sake of arguing. For that matter it's hard as shit for EVERYONE to win a game...that's the point of a RTS...it takes a bit of strategy... | ||
|
MoonCricket
222 Posts
On March 22 2013 21:43 avilo wrote: Tell me if this is bias: http://www.twitch.tv/avilo/b/380724901 Watch the experiment. It's as if the missile turrets are not even there -_- Go to 29:50 if you want to really see some ridiculousness :D I agree, the problem in TvT seems to be Terrans don't have a deterrent to Medivac drops compared to Feedback and Warp Ins or the Creep movement speed modifier and Fungal Growth. I'm not certain whether or not that means Medivac Thrusters need to be nerfed for the sake of TvT or Terran's need a deterrent to Medivac drops, but one of the things Blizzard could test is returning the Widow Mine to 160 damage base in order to threaten a one shot, one kill on Medivacs. It'd be an inadverdent boost to TvZ by being a one shot, one kill vs Roaches and Vipers, but maybe they could find a buff for Zerg like making Hydralisk range upgrade baseline that'd let Zerg push out slightly faster vs minefields. | ||
| ||
|
|
CrankTV Team League
Bombastic Starleague
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
far too much a focus on balance. I largely blame the community for that. 
