|
On August 14 2013 06:55 awesomoecalypse wrote:The Warp Prism buff has helped make Protoss much more spectator friendly and skill intensive in all 3 matchups. [...]
You have good arguments and I totally agree that it was a good buff. But was there any need for it? No. It was a decision changing the game, with an unsure outcome. Turned out well, yep. This time.
__
And to make changes to get away from the deathball, Blizzard would have to completely re-design Protoss. Sorry. Simply because of tech costs, of units costs and so on.
|
On August 14 2013 06:47 boxerfred wrote:
In the beginning, Sc2:WoL was kinda Rock/Paper/Scissors, every unit had it's hard counter. Then, infestors broke lose. Since then, patches did not meet the right nerve on making the game completely (I'm on purpose not saying equal or balanced) un-abusable. Next thing that broke lose was that 2base Soultrain Protoss build in ZvP, which (imo) killed the whole matchup for some time. I'm not saying that builds do not come and go, a seemingly imba build may get hardcountered by another build within weeks. But those two builds came to mrs. balance and kind of raped her ass (Soultrain not as hard as BL/Inf). Now, things have changed, the game was not completely established newly ofc, but all matchups have changed. The sickest impacts imo:
- MSC
- Hydra speed
- Fungal change
- Widow Mines
- Viper
Now, we are still at the beginning of HotS, I would compare this to end of 2010/beginning of 2011 WoL. Now why the fuck is Blizzard trying to patch, patch, patch the hell out of this game? Seriously! Hellbat nerf. Warpprism buff. Banshee buff. All three changes affected several matchups HUGELY! Now, Blizzard goes on on the road of change with the changes proposed now.
I have some questions to the Blizzard Game Developer Team:
Why weren't you able to think deeply about the new expansion? I mean, in Beta, you saw what the Warhound did. So you took it out, completely eradicated a unit. Were you EVER able to see the impact of Hellbats on a mineral line? You were able to bring widow mines in a way that they do not have to be nerfed instantly.
Why are you kind of randoming changes? Like, nerf hellbat, and "for the sake of buffing something c'mon we have to omg omg" (that's what I call it), buff banshee? Or like, buff warpprism? There was absolutely no need for it. Now, you're thinking about buffing vipers in a kind of sick way - please, tell me your thoughts on this! Why is that necessary?
What plan do you have with HotS? In what way do you want to push the game? Faster? To a higher skill ceiling? Slower? More open to the masses that do not want to ladder 50 games a day to stay good?
When will you fix the current bugs in bnet? I mean, you patched something, and pretty much screwed bnet. How did you do that? I don't get it! It's not like I'm getting tired of re-logging in after playing a 4on4 with friends. No, I enjoy it.
When will you listen to the community's pleading for a re-boot of the bnet in general? Some call it whine, some call it "reasonable thoughts" - but there are pretty many people discussing it, so you should at least give a look at it.
But hell no! You rather go ahead and throw some more game changes into the arena. "It will work out, I'm pretty sure."
You Blizzard guys have your statistics. From what I heard, game stats differ in like 0.1 to a max of 2 percent in winrates. Well, even on a billion games, I wouldn't call a 2 percent winrate difference as "OMG SO IMBALANCED". Neither on pro level nor on everything below level. So stop throwing in a new change each month or two. Please. Just give the game half a year to develop. Listen to the community's thoughts in that time. Check long-term winrates, watch some pro level starcraft and check who's winning. But stop, please, stop mashing and mixing and changing.
So for the TL;DR-guys:
Blizzard, please stop changing the game every one or two months. Please take a look at the current state of the battle.net and decide, if you do want to change it.
a very well thoughout post. thank you very much for bringing in some quality here. 
Well the Hellbat nerf was kinda the same as the queen buff last year. There was a problem "only Hellbat drops as viable strategy in TvT" (easily compared to the "Zerg can't win against Protoss anymore" of spring 2012) and then Blizzard made change that kinda solved the problem, but only with fatal colliteral damage. Now TvP mid and early lategame becomes kinda a mess and back then TvZ early game became one.
I wonder how long David Kim will remain his job, because he doesn't seem to have any clue, how to design the game properly. Perhaps it's just time for a change...
|
On August 14 2013 07:02 boxerfred wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 06:55 awesomoecalypse wrote:Or like, buff warpprism? There was absolutely no need for it. The Warp Prism buff has helped make Protoss much more spectator friendly and skill intensive in all 3 matchups. [...] You have good arguments and I totally agree that it was a good buff. But was there any need for it? No. It was a decision changing the game, with an unsure outcome. Turned out well, yep. This time.
It was a change that needed to be made though, for both balance and design reasons. Protoss was underperforming at the highest level, and when they were winning, it generally came through all-ins, timing attacks, or super turtley deathball play. So Blizzard buffed them in a way that would really only help highly skilled players, and then only if they moved away from all-in/timing attacks and turtling and more towards a more stable, macro and multitask oriented playstyle. It ended up working exactly the way they wanted it to.
I just don't see what you think they did wrong in this case, or what they should have done differently.
|
|
|
On August 14 2013 07:05 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 07:02 boxerfred wrote:On August 14 2013 06:55 awesomoecalypse wrote:Or like, buff warpprism? There was absolutely no need for it. The Warp Prism buff has helped make Protoss much more spectator friendly and skill intensive in all 3 matchups. [...] You have good arguments and I totally agree that it was a good buff. But was there any need for it? No. It was a decision changing the game, with an unsure outcome. Turned out well, yep. This time. It was a change that needed to be made though, for both balance and design reasons. Protoss was underperforming at the highest level, and when they were winning, it generally came through all-ins, timing attacks, or super turtley deathball play. So Blizzard buffed them in a way that would really only help highly skilled players, and then only if they moved away from all-in/timing attacks and turtling and more towards a more stable, macro and multitask oriented playstyle. It ended up working exactly the way they wanted it to. I just don't see what you think they did wrong in this case, or what they should have done differently.
Whoa whoa whoa wait. I do not want to talk about balance issues. There is NO evidence for ANY race underperforming at the time. A protoss won WCS EU, terrans took home WCS KR/AM. So what? Let's check next season for further clues. That is what I am talking about in my post. That is why I do identify you now as a TL;DR guy  . There is no time given for the game to develop. I mean, how long took it to find the Infestor/BL composition? How long did Stephano need for his 3base roach? How long did Parting need for Soul train? How long did it even take in early WoL to establish the game as mostly macro with 3++ bases?
That is why I do not think that any changes that are not totally freaking necessary should be done right now. The only thing that was changed and actually was necessary (in my opinion! I might be wrong there, too!) was the hellbat. And that kind of turned out in a good way, it did not remove the unit completely from the game - or, oh wait, I think it did. Usage reduced for like 90% oder so (at least it feels like that). Hellbat was designed as a harass unit, and designed as a possible buff for mech compositions. It now is - neither of both. afaik, it is used in TvP lategame.
You see what I want to show you? Things need time! Strategies do not evolve every 2 weeks, they do need time! And we are still talking about a "Real-Time Strategy"-game here. Not about a "ohwhatthefuckthisisliketwisterandroulettecombined"-game.
HotS changed the meta game completely. Now, all Blizzard should do (imo only!!!) is to wait. Deal with the hard issues (i.e. Hellbats (done), Battle.net-Bugs (pending)) immediately - and whereever you can give some time, give that time.
|
tbh i do miss the old days TvZs (like mma vs drg) with seige tanks, so imo, if blizzard actually looking for making TvZ as exciting as they were, there should be some kind of nerf buff trade with seige tanks and WMs.
|
The problem with TvZ (if there is one at all) seems to be that zergs are dying to 3/3 bio whilst on 2/2. Cheaper upgrades/hive tech seems to be a buff that could actually make a reasonable difference in the matchup. Something more extreme like increasing the splash radius of banelings could be done if the issue is really that severe.
On the mech issue, I don't really see what changes could be made to the siege tank without screwing the whole game over. SC2 in general feels like it is balanced towards the tank being pretty terrible.
|
Whoa whoa whoa wait. I do not want to talk about balance issues. There is NO evidence for ANY race underperforming at the time. A protoss won WCS EU, terrans took home WCS KR/AM. So what? Let's check next season for further clues. That is what I am talking about in my post. That is why I do identify you now as a TL;DR guy . There is no time given for the game to develop. I mean, how long took it to find the Infestor/BL composition? How long did Stephano need for his 3base roach? How long did Parting need for Soul train? How long did it even take in early WoL to establish the game as mostly macro with 3++ bases?
All of these were created or enabled by balance patches or changes in map design. If we were still playing on early WoL maps like Steppes of War and Delta Quadrant, it never would have become a 3 base macro game. If Immortal range wasn't buffed, soul train never happens. If the Queen buff never happens, then Infestor/Broodlord never becomes as dominant as it did.
The difference is, unlike enabling shitty Infestor/BL play and boring Immortal all-ins, the Warp Prism buff actually made the game better.
|
On August 14 2013 07:20 Absentia wrote:
The problem with TvZ (if there is one at all) seems to be that zergs are dying to 3/3 bio whilst on 2/2. Cheaper upgrades/hive tech seems to be a buff that could actually make a reasonable difference in the matchup. Something more extreme like increasing the splash radius of banelings could be done if the issue is really that severe.
On the mech issue, I don't really see what changes could be made to the siege tank without screwing the whole game over. SC2 in general feels like it is balanced towards the tank being pretty terrible.
But you have to see the whole thing. Imagine a 3/3 roach hydra army with full energy vipers two minutes earlier then before (just to point out the most extreme case). Yes, terran trades better for some time. But there are zergs that simply get hive tech a bit earlier for the sake of upgrades (Soulkey alone shall be mentioned). They're not instantly transitioning to late game. ZvT does have a longer mid-game as, let's say, ZvP. So - I do not see a problem in there.
On mech issue (mainly in ZvT/PvT) : it's the same as the protoss deathball issue. If you do not like the point of getting a deathball, keep it together and try to win in huge engagements, well - you're screwed then. That is, as I would call it, a constant of the game. Personally, I do not enjoy ZvP, neither as player nor as watcher. I find it boring. I am an absolute fan of ZvT, TvT and ZvZ (kind of). Protoss will be one time the reason for me to quit SC2 completely. But hey, that's the game. If you don't like it, leave it. I do not like the races/units of Command and Conquer either. That's why I don't play it. If you do like the game in general, but do not like some things, then you have to deal with it, and it's completely up to you what your consequences are. But as long as Blizzard does not lose tens of thousands of viewers (fill in Terry's Lord of the Rings reference here..) and/or players and identifies it as "This is because protoss is lame" - they won't change it, and they are right in their decision.
__
Increasing baneling splash radius is just another unnecessary change. Seriously .
|
On August 14 2013 07:21 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +Whoa whoa whoa wait. I do not want to talk about balance issues. There is NO evidence for ANY race underperforming at the time. A protoss won WCS EU, terrans took home WCS KR/AM. So what? Let's check next season for further clues. That is what I am talking about in my post. That is why I do identify you now as a TL;DR guy . There is no time given for the game to develop. I mean, how long took it to find the Infestor/BL composition? How long did Stephano need for his 3base roach? How long did Parting need for Soul train? How long did it even take in early WoL to establish the game as mostly macro with 3++ bases?
All of these were created or enabled by balance patches or changes in map design. If we were still playing on early WoL maps like Steppes of War and Delta Quadrant, it never would have become a 3 base macro game. If Immortal range wasn't buffed, soul train never happens. If the Queen buff never happens, then Infestor/Broodlord never becomes as dominant as it did. The difference is, unlike enabling shitty Infestor/BL play and boring Immortal all-ins, the Warp Prism buff actually made the game better.
Yep. I know. I already said that I agree on the benefits of the warp prism buff. But the queen buff was thrown in the same way as the prism buff, and (as you said!) turned out to be the complete opposite of it, it broke two matchups completely.
So, if I get the meaning of your words right, you're either saying "the patch gamble is completely okay" or you're saying "hell no, out of those patch gambles came two matchup-breaking compositions almost instantly". Could you specify your point now, so I can see if you're friend of foe?
Edit: on point of map design: THAT is actually a thing that would be great. And you're completely right with that point!! Changing the maps changes the strategies. Best examples: Neo Planet S compared to Whirl Wind. So that might be a better point for Blizzard to dive in. Stop the patch gamble, focus on maps. Whoa, that is a huge and great and intelligent thought! I am not(!!!) kidding! You enlightened me.
|
Can we all just say that we all miss WARHOUNDS?
That was the mistake.
Too strong?
Nerf it.
Don't take it away....
Terran received like 1.5 "new unit" (Widowmine and hellbat) - not really "woah"able.
compared to Protoss's Tempest, mothership, oracle.. -extremely new
Zerg's Swarm host, Viper, -extremely new
well, though it is balanced, it's kind of boring seeing Bio vs Zerg and Toss at the tournament everyday...
|
On August 14 2013 07:29 boxerfred wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 07:21 awesomoecalypse wrote:Whoa whoa whoa wait. I do not want to talk about balance issues. There is NO evidence for ANY race underperforming at the time. A protoss won WCS EU, terrans took home WCS KR/AM. So what? Let's check next season for further clues. That is what I am talking about in my post. That is why I do identify you now as a TL;DR guy . There is no time given for the game to develop. I mean, how long took it to find the Infestor/BL composition? How long did Stephano need for his 3base roach? How long did Parting need for Soul train? How long did it even take in early WoL to establish the game as mostly macro with 3++ bases?
All of these were created or enabled by balance patches or changes in map design. If we were still playing on early WoL maps like Steppes of War and Delta Quadrant, it never would have become a 3 base macro game. If Immortal range wasn't buffed, soul train never happens. If the Queen buff never happens, then Infestor/Broodlord never becomes as dominant as it did. The difference is, unlike enabling shitty Infestor/BL play and boring Immortal all-ins, the Warp Prism buff actually made the game better. Yep. I know. I already said that I agree on the benefits of the warp prism buff. But the queen buff was thrown in the same way as the prism buff, and (as you said!) turned out to be the complete opposite of it, it broke two matchups completely. So, if I get the meaning of your words right, you're either saying "the patch gamble is completely okay" or you're saying "hell no, out of those patch gambles came two matchup-breaking games". Could you specify your point now, so I can see if you're friend of foe? Edit: on point of map design: THAT is actually a thing that would be great. And you're completely right with that point!! Changing the maps changes the strategies. Best examples: Neo Planet S compared to Whirl Wind. So that might be a better point for Blizzard to dive in. Stop the patch gamble, focus on maps. Whoa, that is a huge and great and intelligent thought! I am not(!!!) kidding! You enlightened me.
Well the queen buff wasn't a pure gamble buff, but was mainly meant to help ZvZs vs bane aggresions, and to help ZvT vs hellions kitings on queens.
|
On August 14 2013 07:33 TimKim0713 wrote:
Can we all just say that we all miss WARHOUNDS?
That was the mistake.
Too strong?
Nerf it.
Don't take it away....
Terran received like 1.5 "new unit" (Widowmine and hellbat) - not really "woah"able.
compared to Protoss's Tempest, mothership, oracle.. -extremely new
Zerg's Swarm host, Viper, -extremely new
well, though it is balanced, it's kind of boring seeing Bio vs Zerg and Toss at the tournament everyday...
Read the two posts that I wrote before. Especially the one about the mech and protoss issue. Or get off this thread and wait for Legacy of the Void. Thanks!
|
On August 14 2013 06:47 boxerfred wrote:
In the beginning, Sc2:WoL was kinda Rock/Paper/Scissors, every unit had it's hard counter. Then, infestors broke lose. Since then, patches did not meet the right nerve on making the game completely (I'm on purpose not saying equal or balanced) un-abusable. Next thing that broke lose was that 2base Soultrain Protoss build in ZvP, which (imo) killed the whole matchup for some time. I'm not saying that builds do not come and go, a seemingly imba build may get hardcountered by another build within weeks. But those two builds came to mrs. balance and kind of raped her ass (Soultrain not as hard as BL/Inf). Now, things have changed, the game was not completely established newly ofc, but all matchups have changed. The sickest impacts imo:
- MSC
- Hydra speed
- Fungal change
- Widow Mines
- Viper
Now, we are still at the beginning of HotS, I would compare this to end of 2010/beginning of 2011 WoL. Now why the fuck is Blizzard trying to patch, patch, patch the hell out of this game? Seriously! Hellbat nerf. Warpprism buff. Banshee buff. All three changes affected several matchups HUGELY! Now, Blizzard goes on on the road of change with the changes proposed now.
I have some questions to the Blizzard Game Developer Team:
Why weren't you able to think deeply about the new expansion? I mean, in Beta, you saw what the Warhound did. So you took it out, completely eradicated a unit. Were you EVER able to see the impact of Hellbats on a mineral line? You were able to bring widow mines in a way that they do not have to be nerfed instantly.
Why are you kind of randoming changes? Like, nerf hellbat, and "for the sake of buffing something c'mon we have to omg omg" (that's what I call it), buff banshee? Or like, buff warpprism? There was absolutely no need for it. Now, you're thinking about buffing vipers in a kind of sick way - please, tell me your thoughts on this! Why is that necessary?
What plan do you have with HotS? In what way do you want to push the game? Faster? To a higher skill ceiling? Slower? More open to the masses that do not want to ladder 50 games a day to stay good?
When will you fix the current bugs in bnet? I mean, you patched something, and pretty much screwed bnet. How did you do that? I don't get it! It's not like I'm getting tired of re-logging in after playing a 4on4 with friends. No, I enjoy it.
When will you listen to the community's pleading for a re-boot of the bnet in general? Some call it whine, some call it "reasonable thoughts" - but there are pretty many people discussing it, so you should at least give a look at it.
But hell no! You rather go ahead and throw some more game changes into the arena. "It will work out, I'm pretty sure."
You Blizzard guys have your statistics. From what I heard, game stats differ in like 0.1 to a max of 2 percent in winrates. Well, even on a billion games, I wouldn't call a 2 percent winrate difference as "OMG SO IMBALANCED". Neither on pro level nor on everything below level. So stop throwing in a new change each month or two. Please. Just give the game half a year to develop. Listen to the community's thoughts in that time. Check long-term winrates, watch some pro level starcraft and check who's winning. But stop, please, stop mashing and mixing and changing.
So for the TL;DR-guys:
Blizzard, please stop changing the game every one or two months. Please take a look at the current state of the battle.net and decide, if you do want to change it.
Of course they should patch NOW if they feel there are problems. If they don't patch the game in the months after it has been released, when do you patch then. In 2years when everything has been figured out?
"Well, I guess we were wrong and there really were issues. We are going to patch them now, ok guys? Guys? Anybody here still playing?"
The way every (reasonable) game has ever been patched is that you
- design and alpha test it
- release a beta and balance the beta when the most unsatisfying stuff has been removed
- release the game and keep on watching whether the smaller problems go away and if not patch them
- keep on patching the game whenever issues come up for a few months or years
and if you have done a good job, the game should turn out balanced and no further patches will be needed
Of course we MUST discuss what is an issue and what is not. But I think it's quite blue-eyed to claim that everything will work out fine and the stats are in the game are better than the stats that are in the game after a patch. After all it's not like when designing and balancing the overseer they have measured 2.75 speed to be "the perfect value". They put some thought into it, but in the end it's just a number someone set at some point. And if the same person after some time comes in and states "guys, we think this number should be a little higher" I don't know what's so wrong about it. At least if they bring some good reasoning for it. Which we must discuss again, but that's something we have to do for each and every change on its own and not just discount it for the sake of not-wanting-to-change-the-game.
|
On August 14 2013 07:35 dohgg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 07:29 boxerfred wrote:On August 14 2013 07:21 awesomoecalypse wrote:Whoa whoa whoa wait. I do not want to talk about balance issues. There is NO evidence for ANY race underperforming at the time. A protoss won WCS EU, terrans took home WCS KR/AM. So what? Let's check next season for further clues. That is what I am talking about in my post. That is why I do identify you now as a TL;DR guy . There is no time given for the game to develop. I mean, how long took it to find the Infestor/BL composition? How long did Stephano need for his 3base roach? How long did Parting need for Soul train? How long did it even take in early WoL to establish the game as mostly macro with 3++ bases?
All of these were created or enabled by balance patches or changes in map design. If we were still playing on early WoL maps like Steppes of War and Delta Quadrant, it never would have become a 3 base macro game. If Immortal range wasn't buffed, soul train never happens. If the Queen buff never happens, then Infestor/Broodlord never becomes as dominant as it did. The difference is, unlike enabling shitty Infestor/BL play and boring Immortal all-ins, the Warp Prism buff actually made the game better. Yep. I know. I already said that I agree on the benefits of the warp prism buff. But the queen buff was thrown in the same way as the prism buff, and (as you said!) turned out to be the complete opposite of it, it broke two matchups completely. So, if I get the meaning of your words right, you're either saying "the patch gamble is completely okay" or you're saying "hell no, out of those patch gambles came two matchup-breaking games". Could you specify your point now, so I can see if you're friend of foe? Edit: on point of map design: THAT is actually a thing that would be great. And you're completely right with that point!! Changing the maps changes the strategies. Best examples: Neo Planet S compared to Whirl Wind. So that might be a better point for Blizzard to dive in. Stop the patch gamble, focus on maps. Whoa, that is a huge and great and intelligent thought! I am not(!!!) kidding! You enlightened me. Well the queen buff wasn't a pure gamble buff, but was mainly meant to help ZvZs vs bane aggresions, and to help ZvT vs hellions kitings on queens.
Yeah, and did it change anything of that? There are still kiting hellions nowadays. There is still ling/bling aggression (you seldom see a mass queen defense in ZvZ, though it exists). It was not thought out well enough! If we leave BL/Infestor aside, then it was a reasonable and a positive subtle game changer. So maybe it's exaggerated to call it a gamble, yeah. But still, Blizzard's responsible team does not dive in deep enough into the game. It might not be a gamble on purpose, and one cannot reduce the risk of screwing something really hard to a full zero. But c'mon, if you buff a early game support unit that still has its use until the very super late game, you just HAVE to know that it will have a huge impact not only on the match-ups it is supposed to hit.
|
On August 14 2013 07:36 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 06:47 boxerfred wrote:
In the beginning, Sc2:WoL was kinda Rock/Paper/Scissors, every unit had it's hard counter. Then, infestors broke lose. Since then, patches did not meet the right nerve on making the game completely (I'm on purpose not saying equal or balanced) un-abusable. Next thing that broke lose was that 2base Soultrain Protoss build in ZvP, which (imo) killed the whole matchup for some time. I'm not saying that builds do not come and go, a seemingly imba build may get hardcountered by another build within weeks. But those two builds came to mrs. balance and kind of raped her ass (Soultrain not as hard as BL/Inf). Now, things have changed, the game was not completely established newly ofc, but all matchups have changed. The sickest impacts imo:
- MSC
- Hydra speed
- Fungal change
- Widow Mines
- Viper
Now, we are still at the beginning of HotS, I would compare this to end of 2010/beginning of 2011 WoL. Now why the fuck is Blizzard trying to patch, patch, patch the hell out of this game? Seriously! Hellbat nerf. Warpprism buff. Banshee buff. All three changes affected several matchups HUGELY! Now, Blizzard goes on on the road of change with the changes proposed now.
I have some questions to the Blizzard Game Developer Team:
Why weren't you able to think deeply about the new expansion? I mean, in Beta, you saw what the Warhound did. So you took it out, completely eradicated a unit. Were you EVER able to see the impact of Hellbats on a mineral line? You were able to bring widow mines in a way that they do not have to be nerfed instantly.
Why are you kind of randoming changes? Like, nerf hellbat, and "for the sake of buffing something c'mon we have to omg omg" (that's what I call it), buff banshee? Or like, buff warpprism? There was absolutely no need for it. Now, you're thinking about buffing vipers in a kind of sick way - please, tell me your thoughts on this! Why is that necessary?
What plan do you have with HotS? In what way do you want to push the game? Faster? To a higher skill ceiling? Slower? More open to the masses that do not want to ladder 50 games a day to stay good?
When will you fix the current bugs in bnet? I mean, you patched something, and pretty much screwed bnet. How did you do that? I don't get it! It's not like I'm getting tired of re-logging in after playing a 4on4 with friends. No, I enjoy it.
When will you listen to the community's pleading for a re-boot of the bnet in general? Some call it whine, some call it "reasonable thoughts" - but there are pretty many people discussing it, so you should at least give a look at it.
But hell no! You rather go ahead and throw some more game changes into the arena. "It will work out, I'm pretty sure."
You Blizzard guys have your statistics. From what I heard, game stats differ in like 0.1 to a max of 2 percent in winrates. Well, even on a billion games, I wouldn't call a 2 percent winrate difference as "OMG SO IMBALANCED". Neither on pro level nor on everything below level. So stop throwing in a new change each month or two. Please. Just give the game half a year to develop. Listen to the community's thoughts in that time. Check long-term winrates, watch some pro level starcraft and check who's winning. But stop, please, stop mashing and mixing and changing.
So for the TL;DR-guys:
Blizzard, please stop changing the game every one or two months. Please take a look at the current state of the battle.net and decide, if you do want to change it. Of course they should patch NOW if they feel there are problems. If they don't patch the game in the months after it has been released, when do you patch then. In 2years when everything has been figured out? "Well, I guess we were wrong and there really were issues. We are going to patch them now, ok guys? Guys? Anybody here still playing?" The way every (reasonable) game has ever been patched is that you - design and alpha test it - release a beta and balance the beta when the most unsatisfying stuff has been removed - release the game and keep on watching whether the smaller problems go away and if not patch them - keep on patching the game whenever issues come up for a few months or years and if you have done a good job, the game should turn out balanced and no further patches will be needed Of course we MUST discuss what is an issue and what is not. But I think it's quite blue-eyed to claim that everything will work out fine and the stats are in the game are better than the stats that are in the game after a patch. After all it's not like when designing and balancing the overseer they have measured 2.75 speed to be "the perfect value". They put some thought into it, but in the end it's just a number someone set at some point. And if the same person after some time comes in and states "guys, we think this number should be a little higher" I don't know what's so wrong about it. At least if they bring some good reasoning for it. Which we must discuss again, but that's something we have to do for each and every change on its own and not just discount it for the sake of not-wanting-to-change-the-game.
I think you are exaggerating here, Big J. What is a problem now, may not be a problem in a few months time. Besides what may or may not be a specific problem tends to vary depending on who you ask (strong correlation to race) and when. Moreover, the game may not be figured out in two years time (if you were serious!). That's a very long bow to play.
The main question should be are there enough tools for players to use to solve the problems that the game and other players present them? (A secondary questions is, can these problems also be fixed or looked at differently in ways that do not require changing or tweaking the rules of the game? I am looking at maps here in answering this latter question.) If the answer is: on balance and in overall terms, yes, then nothing further is required from Blizzard. It's all on the players (i.e. us).
That said, by and large, I've liked Blizzard's approach to patching in HOTS (a far cry from WOL). But, to me, this possible patch, with the exception of a number tweak to Overseer speed seems unnecessary.
|
On August 14 2013 07:36 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 06:47 boxerfred wrote:
In the beginning, Sc2:WoL was kinda Rock/Paper/Scissors, every unit had it's hard counter. Then, infestors broke lose. Since then, patches did not meet the right nerve on making the game completely (I'm on purpose not saying equal or balanced) un-abusable. Next thing that broke lose was that 2base Soultrain Protoss build in ZvP, which (imo) killed the whole matchup for some time. I'm not saying that builds do not come and go, a seemingly imba build may get hardcountered by another build within weeks. But those two builds came to mrs. balance and kind of raped her ass (Soultrain not as hard as BL/Inf). Now, things have changed, the game was not completely established newly ofc, but all matchups have changed. The sickest impacts imo:
- MSC
- Hydra speed
- Fungal change
- Widow Mines
- Viper
Now, we are still at the beginning of HotS, I would compare this to end of 2010/beginning of 2011 WoL. Now why the fuck is Blizzard trying to patch, patch, patch the hell out of this game? Seriously! Hellbat nerf. Warpprism buff. Banshee buff. All three changes affected several matchups HUGELY! Now, Blizzard goes on on the road of change with the changes proposed now.
I have some questions to the Blizzard Game Developer Team:
Why weren't you able to think deeply about the new expansion? I mean, in Beta, you saw what the Warhound did. So you took it out, completely eradicated a unit. Were you EVER able to see the impact of Hellbats on a mineral line? You were able to bring widow mines in a way that they do not have to be nerfed instantly.
Why are you kind of randoming changes? Like, nerf hellbat, and "for the sake of buffing something c'mon we have to omg omg" (that's what I call it), buff banshee? Or like, buff warpprism? There was absolutely no need for it. Now, you're thinking about buffing vipers in a kind of sick way - please, tell me your thoughts on this! Why is that necessary?
What plan do you have with HotS? In what way do you want to push the game? Faster? To a higher skill ceiling? Slower? More open to the masses that do not want to ladder 50 games a day to stay good?
When will you fix the current bugs in bnet? I mean, you patched something, and pretty much screwed bnet. How did you do that? I don't get it! It's not like I'm getting tired of re-logging in after playing a 4on4 with friends. No, I enjoy it.
When will you listen to the community's pleading for a re-boot of the bnet in general? Some call it whine, some call it "reasonable thoughts" - but there are pretty many people discussing it, so you should at least give a look at it.
But hell no! You rather go ahead and throw some more game changes into the arena. "It will work out, I'm pretty sure."
You Blizzard guys have your statistics. From what I heard, game stats differ in like 0.1 to a max of 2 percent in winrates. Well, even on a billion games, I wouldn't call a 2 percent winrate difference as "OMG SO IMBALANCED". Neither on pro level nor on everything below level. So stop throwing in a new change each month or two. Please. Just give the game half a year to develop. Listen to the community's thoughts in that time. Check long-term winrates, watch some pro level starcraft and check who's winning. But stop, please, stop mashing and mixing and changing.
So for the TL;DR-guys:
Blizzard, please stop changing the game every one or two months. Please take a look at the current state of the battle.net and decide, if you do want to change it. Of course they should patch NOW if they feel there are problems. If they don't patch the game in the months after it has been released, when do you patch then. In 2years when everything has been figured out? "Well, I guess we were wrong and there really were issues. We are going to patch them now, ok guys? Guys? Anybody here still playing?" The way every (reasonable) game has ever been patched is that you - design and alpha test it - release a beta and balance the beta when the most unsatisfying stuff has been removed - release the game and keep on watching whether the smaller problems go away and if not patch them - keep on patching the game whenever issues come up for a few months or years and if you have done a good job, the game should turn out balanced and no further patches will be needed Of course we MUST discuss what is an issue and what is not. But I think it's quite blue-eyed to claim that everything will work out fine and the stats are in the game are better than the stats that are in the game after a patch. After all it's not like when designing and balancing the overseer they have measured 2.75 speed to be "the perfect value". They put some thought into it, but in the end it's just a number someone set at some point. And if the same person after some time comes in and states "guys, we think this number should be a little higher" I don't know what's so wrong about it. At least if they bring some good reasoning for it. Which we must discuss again, but that's something we have to do for each and every change on its own and not just discount it for the sake of not-wanting-to-change-the-game.
Yep, you're right, though you're exaggerating the topic a little bit. But you're missreading me. I'm not saying "Just let the game develop and everything will be fine." (blue-eyed, as you call it). Also, I do want the game to change. I have my opinion to certain things. But I do not want to start a fire about balance issues or anything else/similar here. But at the time, the game is changed over and over again. And the only necessary change was the (as we all can agree I guess) big Hellbat issue.
How does Blizzard identify "problems", as you call it? They only can do it via two ways (point out more if you can. I can't see everything at once).
1) via overall winrates on ladder and pro tournaments, taking all regions in consideration. Those statistics can only say something true about the state of the game if there's at least a month (I would go so far and say 1-3 months) of continueing observation. A kind of good example might be the Soul Train after the immortal bust - I do not have proof, but I could imagine that the average PvZ gametime was shortened a bit.
2) via community/pro player feedback, best example: BL/Inf, and hellbats.
I can't imagine having a hundred guys in Paris at Blizzard EU headquarter playing 8h a day StarCraft II to find out things about balance issues, sorry.
As you pointed out, a "problem" was seen and instantly changed, with a kind-of-well-thought-out patch. It could have been better, but you are right: they couldn't wait any longer. But, and here comes the rest of the changes so far in HotS: if there is no hot problem, there should be given more time before making changes.
I hope you got me right now. Please take the time to read it, TL;DR makes me sad.
Edit: Regarding the "If you don't change now at the beginning, when do you patch then? In two years?": Well. Blizzard does bring out freaking Legacy of the Void. If you do not call that a change, I do not know what else could be a gamechanger for you. So, there goes your point, huh?
|
On August 14 2013 07:19 dohgg wrote:
tbh i do miss the old days TvZs (like mma vs drg) with seige tanks, so imo, if blizzard actually looking for making TvZ as exciting as they were, there should be some kind of nerf buff trade with seige tanks and WMs.
Some pretty big games on Cloud Kingdom, too. Don't remember if that was MMA though, but I'm sure it was DRG. Ah, reminiscences.. great stuff.
|
i really miss marine tank. mainly because marine mine made me think that terrans have become a bit more lazy. back when they used marine tank they used awesome splits, now i see a lot of terrans losign engangement because they refuse to properly split vs the banes. i saw groups of 30 marines die to a few banelings. and i miss the awesome sounds the tanks made .
|
On August 14 2013 07:29 boxerfred wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 07:21 awesomoecalypse wrote:Whoa whoa whoa wait. I do not want to talk about balance issues. There is NO evidence for ANY race underperforming at the time. A protoss won WCS EU, terrans took home WCS KR/AM. So what? Let's check next season for further clues. That is what I am talking about in my post. That is why I do identify you now as a TL;DR guy . There is no time given for the game to develop. I mean, how long took it to find the Infestor/BL composition? How long did Stephano need for his 3base roach? How long did Parting need for Soul train? How long did it even take in early WoL to establish the game as mostly macro with 3++ bases?
All of these were created or enabled by balance patches or changes in map design. If we were still playing on early WoL maps like Steppes of War and Delta Quadrant, it never would have become a 3 base macro game. If Immortal range wasn't buffed, soul train never happens. If the Queen buff never happens, then Infestor/Broodlord never becomes as dominant as it did. The difference is, unlike enabling shitty Infestor/BL play and boring Immortal all-ins, the Warp Prism buff actually made the game better. Yep. I know. I already said that I agree on the benefits of the warp prism buff. But the queen buff was thrown in the same way as the prism buff, and (as you said!) turned out to be the complete opposite of it, it broke two matchups completely. So, if I get the meaning of your words right, you're either saying "the patch gamble is completely okay" or you're saying "hell no, out of those patch gambles came two matchup-breaking compositions almost instantly". Could you specify your point now, so I can see if you're friend of foe? Edit: on point of map design: THAT is actually a thing that would be great. And you're completely right with that point!! Changing the maps changes the strategies. Best examples: Neo Planet S compared to Whirl Wind. So that might be a better point for Blizzard to dive in. Stop the patch gamble, focus on maps. Whoa, that is a huge and great and intelligent thought! I am not(!!!) kidding! You enlightened me.
I don't believe all patches are bad, nor that all patches are good. Patches have a role in the development of the game, but they need to be carefully considered. That doesn't mean Blizzard should only patch things when there is some sort of egregious gamebreaking flaw--if a minor change will promote more skilled, more spectator friendly gameplay, then they should make it. The Prism buff is a good example.
The Queen Buff was an example of an ill-considered patch. Even at the time, no one thought a change that big was necessary, and it was obvious what its effect would be--to neutralize early game harass against Zerg to the point that mass expanding and droning behind nothing but some queens would become the new standard.
I think "all patches are bad", or even "patches are just a complete crapshoot", isn't really accurate. Some patches are demonstrably good for the game, and in general with a little forethought and playtesting, its easy to get some sense of what a patch will do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
