|
On July 27 2013 02:19 IAmHaunteR wrote:
How can someone be so short-sided?
Most of Zerg ladder wins are because of all ins...and the reason we had a ZvZ FINALS is because the Zergs there were way and above the rest of the crowd...
Ugh
Most of Terran ladder wins are because of 3 base all ins...and the reason we see innovation and flash do so well is because they are way and above the rest of the crowd...
|
Northern Ireland26242 Posts
On July 27 2013 02:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:41 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2013 02:30 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2013 02:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit. The interviewer is really just a conduit for the community's queries, so we're to blame for it in a manner of speaking I guess. I happily allow Blizzard to proceed as they see fit, they don't really owe me anything as I've got more than my money's worth out of the game purchase I made. I just dispute some of the party lines they trot out, especially regarding the casual playerbase. Most of my friends who dipped into the game found things like terrible terrible damage REALLY frustrating and not cool or dynamic. I can see that, but I have friends who don't like Dota because "everything isn't on one screen". They don't like scrolling to other parts of the map or being attacked or stunned from off screen. Or getting nuked down without a chance to respond. Does that make Dota bad? No, just not for them. Games like this are not going to please everyone and trying to do that only makes them flat and boring. I would rather Dota be batshit crazy and SC2 being unforgiving and mean than slowing everything down so some people can catch up. See your point is fair, but equally I don't put 'terrible terrible damage' in the same kind of category as you. If the interviewer had demanded automated macro, or something really alien to what Starcraft historically is, I would be in agreement. As it is, discussing how deathball v deathball battles can end really quickly and in a frustrating manner for both players and spectators is a legitimate point of inquiry, to me at least. They acknowledge the issue as well, but have skirted around core mechanical issues at trying to mitigate it through encouraging harassment all over the place. There are things they could do, like make the auto-targeting "less good" but at the end of the day it would only help so much. As long as we can box all our units and A-move them, the death ball will always be an issue. If they wanted to make it better, making protoss less reliant of the colossi for its constant splash damage would go a long way to limiting their "death-bally-ness". But I don't know how you do that.
I'm more annoyed by their lack of EVER doing anything with the Collosus, than the actual state of the game at present tbf.
I've seen some cool suggestions that don't even involve re-designing anything at the engine level. One which is my own personal one is making Collosus a lot more slow, Zealots without charge and faster passive speed, and tweaking Protoss move speeds across the board.
More divergent move speeds makes it harder to control a deathball. There is an advantage in controlling well, if the consequence of A-moving involves your Zealots ahead of your Stalkers/Immortals, and your critical AoE lagging behind.
It's by no means at all a good idea, but the general concept of non-engine tweaks to alter deathball play is really unexplored, imo.
|
On July 26 2013 13:14 Holdenintherye wrote:
Viper buff? So less energy for abducts or something?
I think the problem with viper is range. And because it doesn't affect mines it's pretty useless in current state of zvt.
|
On July 27 2013 01:31 Aiobhill wrote:
He is also biased as hell, not necessarily race biased but unit biased. "We don't want to nerf the widow mine and medivac." Basically guarantueeing the two most problematic terran units will remain untouched also indicates they will not make mech more viable.
The widow mine and the medivac are the 2 units that keep terran in the game atm. Nerf these and we got WOL terran again. We all knew how "fun" the last wol year was 
|
On July 27 2013 02:56 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:52 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2013 02:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:41 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2013 02:30 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2013 02:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit. The interviewer is really just a conduit for the community's queries, so we're to blame for it in a manner of speaking I guess. I happily allow Blizzard to proceed as they see fit, they don't really owe me anything as I've got more than my money's worth out of the game purchase I made. I just dispute some of the party lines they trot out, especially regarding the casual playerbase. Most of my friends who dipped into the game found things like terrible terrible damage REALLY frustrating and not cool or dynamic. I can see that, but I have friends who don't like Dota because "everything isn't on one screen". They don't like scrolling to other parts of the map or being attacked or stunned from off screen. Or getting nuked down without a chance to respond. Does that make Dota bad? No, just not for them. Games like this are not going to please everyone and trying to do that only makes them flat and boring. I would rather Dota be batshit crazy and SC2 being unforgiving and mean than slowing everything down so some people can catch up. See your point is fair, but equally I don't put 'terrible terrible damage' in the same kind of category as you. If the interviewer had demanded automated macro, or something really alien to what Starcraft historically is, I would be in agreement. As it is, discussing how deathball v deathball battles can end really quickly and in a frustrating manner for both players and spectators is a legitimate point of inquiry, to me at least. They acknowledge the issue as well, but have skirted around core mechanical issues at trying to mitigate it through encouraging harassment all over the place. There are things they could do, like make the auto-targeting "less good" but at the end of the day it would only help so much. As long as we can box all our units and A-move them, the death ball will always be an issue. If they wanted to make it better, making protoss less reliant of the colossi for its constant splash damage would go a long way to limiting their "death-bally-ness". But I don't know how you do that. I'm more annoyed by their lack of EVER doing anything with the Collosus, than the actual state of the game at present tbf. I've seen some cool suggestions that don't even involve re-designing anything at the engine level. One which is my own personal one is making Collosus a lot more slow, Zealots without charge and faster passive speed, and tweaking Protoss move speeds across the board. More divergent move speeds makes it harder to control a deathball. There is an advantage in controlling well, if the consequence of A-moving involves your Zealots ahead of your Stalkers/Immortals, and your critical AoE lagging behind. It's by no means at all a good idea, but the general concept of non-engine tweaks to alter deathball play is really unexplored, imo.
I don't think the colossi is bad as a unit. I just only want to build 2. Really all protoss needs is a basic ranged unit that can dump out reasonable DPS that doesn't cost a mint(ie, not the immotal) and the colossi problem is solved. That is the only reason colossi are built, is that the stalker can't dump out enough DPS and the immortal is to bursty.
I also want a better charge for Zealots. I just want to be able to turn it on myself and control them while they charge. The amount of cool stuff I could do with that would be neat.
|
On July 27 2013 02:55 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:19 IAmHaunteR wrote:
How can someone be so short-sided?
Most of Zerg ladder wins are because of all ins...and the reason we had a ZvZ FINALS is because the Zergs there were way and above the rest of the crowd...
Ugh Most of Terran ladder wins are because of 3 base all ins...and the reason we see innovation and flash do so well is because they are way and above the rest of the crowd...
No love for Third-Rate Terrans 
+ Show Spoiler + Bomber
|
On July 27 2013 02:45 SCguineapig wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 13:11 blade55555 wrote:On July 26 2013 13:05 Kim Hyuna wrote:
David Kim till date still don't address the low cost of Roaches which dealt so much damage in mass.
And still NO stalkers buff since WOL days. Seriously? Not whining about balance but what the fuck? All his comments doesn't make sense. And buffing VIPER which already so strong against P which makes making colos pretty useless.
Err you realize the counter to viper is templar right? Like it's not that hard to feedback a viper before it abducts colossi  . I am curious how they will buff the viper without making it broken as shit lol. abduct range is larger then feedback range.
Where did you get this from lol? They are the same range...
|
On July 27 2013 03:01 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 01:31 Aiobhill wrote:
He is also biased as hell, not necessarily race biased but unit biased. "We don't want to nerf the widow mine and medivac." Basically guarantueeing the two most problematic terran units will remain untouched also indicates they will not make mech more viable.
The widow mine and the medivac are the 2 units that keep terran in the game atm. Nerf these and we got WOL terran again. We all knew how "fun" the last wol year was
current state of terran is not necessarily fun. It was entertaining in the beginning, but not as much now . ZvP and ZvZ are more dynamic.
|
On July 27 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:27 Sapphire.lux wrote:On July 27 2013 02:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion haha i remember all the WOL battlereports with Browder and how proud he was with his "TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE" , so yeah, the interviewer probably hurt his feelings. Rude question. No its just a dumb one and has not merit. I know YOU think its super important, but asking pointless questions is dumb and alittle rude. It is a core part of the game and not something they are going to change, so why even ask the question when you could ask one about something they might change?
I know what you mean but to be fair, DK had a nice answer with the medivac healing and prolonging battles. Maaaaaybe similar things could be done to more units/ situations to reach the same result without a design overhaul.
Still don't see how you can think of it as rude, Blizzard is the salesman and you can ask whatever the fuck you want, it's up to the salesman to present his product and explain why certain things were done the way they are. In this case, he could have easily said "because this is better" and end of story.
|
Wouldnt it make more sense to comment on the balance in OSL because the best players in the world are playing in that.
|
On July 26 2013 13:05 Kim Hyuna wrote:
David Kim till date still don't address the low cost of Roaches which dealt so much damage in mass.
And still NO stalkers buff since WOL days. Seriously? Not whining about balance but what the fuck? All his comments doesn't make sense. And buffing VIPER which already so strong against P which makes making colos pretty useless.
What? Are you trolling?
|
We've seen like 20 David Kim interviews about balance since SC2 launch and each one is the same. Why do you guys keep expecting something else? You think the 21st is going to be wildly different?
|
'Zerg are doing the best.'
'We want to make mech easier.'
'We're going to buff Vipers.'
Not sure I follow how you can make these three statements simultaneously.
|
On July 27 2013 03:11 snakeeyez wrote:
Wouldnt it make more sense to comment on the balance in OSL because the best players in the world are playing in that.
OSL ro32 is pretty balanced.
|
This game is hopeless like david kim's answers.
There are not enough top protoss players, this just made me lol. Maybe the korean government will establish a top secret training base for 1000 protoss warriors. Well how about giving the protoss the right tools, right now its like having some dude in a 1950's car compete with a 2013 lamborghini. I wonder who will win.
When you balance the game only by some win/loss spreadsheets, nothing good is gonna come out of it.
|
On July 26 2013 16:35 papaz wrote:
Honestly isn't everyone sick of only seeing variations of bio in both TvP and TvZ?
Very sick of it. TvP especially has been stale and uninteresting no matter who's playing for a very long time because Terran only has one compositional choice in a standard game. I actually prefer to watch all-ins from either side because then you at least see a wider range of Terran units on the field. Of course, HotS has pretty much killed those with the nexus cannon.
|
On July 27 2013 04:31 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 16:35 papaz wrote:
Honestly isn't everyone sick of only seeing variations of bio in both TvP and TvZ? Very sick of it. TvP especially has been stale and uninteresting no matter who's playing for a very long time because Terran only has one compositional choice in a standard game. I actually prefer to watch all-ins from either side because then you at least see a wider range of Terran units on the field. Of course, HotS has pretty much killed those with the nexus cannon.
There is like 30% of the units not even being used. Since mech is so useless you'll never see a full mech army. What about Battlecruisers, Carriers, Brood lords (I'm not a fan of the Brood lord itself) but they are Tier 3 units, 50mineral marines are actually more supply-efficient then all of these units, makes no sense at all to even have Tier 3 when they evidently arent good to use. When someone built a carrier in BW I was in pure fear cause it ruled the sky, a carrier in SC2 is a joke and the same goes for the battlecruiser.
I'd like it if lategame actually felt like lategame.
|
i play R and am pleased to read mr kims answers, he seems to know exactly how this game plays. in wings of liberty, it was like they were watching a different game. they now use examples which i find relevant and discuss topics in actual detail
|
On July 27 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:27 Sapphire.lux wrote:On July 27 2013 02:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion haha i remember all the WOL battlereports with Browder and how proud he was with his "TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE" , so yeah, the interviewer probably hurt his feelings. Rude question. No its just a dumb one and has not merit. I know YOU think its super important, but asking pointless questions is dumb and alittle rude. It is a core part of the game and not something they are going to change, so why even ask the question when you could ask one about something they might change?
Interviews are not only about begging for balance changes that can realistically happen. It's also about raising the issues that the player base is concerned about. Battles end too fast for my liking, and for the liking of numerous others. The fact that these others have accepted it long ago doesn't change the fact that they disapprove. And if such disapprovement hurts blizzards feelings guess what, I don't give a shit.
|
On July 27 2013 06:23 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2013 02:27 Sapphire.lux wrote:On July 27 2013 02:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion haha i remember all the WOL battlereports with Browder and how proud he was with his "TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE" , so yeah, the interviewer probably hurt his feelings. Rude question. No its just a dumb one and has not merit. I know YOU think its super important, but asking pointless questions is dumb and alittle rude. It is a core part of the game and not something they are going to change, so why even ask the question when you could ask one about something they might change? Interviews are not only about begging for balance changes that can realistically happen. It's also about raising the issues that the player base is concerned about. Battles end too fast for my liking, and for the liking of numerous others. The fact that these others have accepted it long ago doesn't change the fact that they disapprove. And if such disapprovement hurts blizzards feelings guess what, I don't give a shit.
I'm just all about not asking stupid, useless questions. Its pointless and when people in thread like this go "Good point, that is a fundamental and serious design flaw that hold back the growth of the game. They should consider redesigning the game to allow for more positional, micro based game play that is centered around the highest level of control” I want to dunk my head in ice water. I mean, if people want Blizzard to provide the same answer over and over, just so they can sit in a circle and say “yeah, we are right, we are all right, the game would be better if they did what we said”, I guess they can. I find it to be tiresome, like most balance talks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
