| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 07 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: Anyone who has had to do the transition from the Urza Set the Masque Set in magic the gathering is greatly aware of this bullshit. This is lost on me, but I sure they nerf or buffed a lot of stuff and it either became fun or not fun? | ||
|
HeavenResign
United States702 Posts
This is an aside from "re-working/redesign/fixing issues/etc". This post comes off as blizz should be patching basically until the end of the pro scene. | ||
|
Smackzilla
United States539 Posts
On September 07 2013 06:25 Plansix wrote: I think how the seeing how the publishers attempt to balance competitive games and what route is more effective at making the game more diverse and exciting can be insightful. There are very few in Dota 2 who doesn't look forward to a new balance patch to see what is changed up and buffed. The idea of buffing encourages more diverse game play seems to have worked out for Dota 2 and I think WoL taught us that nerfing units only causes game play to become muted and less int resting. Exactly how does Blizzard learn from Dota2 how to balance SC2 for diversity? Have a concrete example? And yes, people like dota2 patches because they're basically risk free. Trying out new characters and dumping old ones is easy. The draft system is more or less self-balancing. In contrast, all SC2 players look at new patch notes with bated breath because a bad patch can really screw things up for a while (2nd half 2012, anyone?). Now if you mean in the very general sense: "Hey Blizz, diversity is good. Look at dota2 and LoL." Then, that's a legit thing to say, but I doubt you're blowing their mind with some brand new concept. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 07 2013 06:36 HeavenResign wrote: I sort of want to clarify, what is the end-goal for this post? To just have patches that shake up the meta? I always thought the goal would be, one day (meaning not literally, just at some point) after LotV to stop balance patching altogether and let maps decide the balance. This is an aside from "re-working/redesign/fixing issues/etc". This post comes off as blizz should be patching basically until the end of the pro scene. Shaking up the meta and providing player with new ways to play the game is what keeps the game fresh and exciting. So the point is that while there are under or unused units in the game, those should be patched/buffed to pull them into the meta and make the game more interesting. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 07 2013 06:37 Smackzilla wrote: Exactly how does Blizzard learn from Dota2 how to balance SC2 for diversity? Have a concrete example? And yes, people like dota2 patches because they're basically risk free. Trying out new characters and dumping old ones is easy. The draft system is more or less self-balancing. In contrast, all SC2 players look at new patch notes with bated breath because a bad patch can really screw things up for a while (2nd half 2012, anyone?). Now if you mean in the very general sense: "Hey Blizz, diversity is good. Look at dota2 and LoL." Then, that's a legit thing to say, but I doubt you're blowing their mind with some brand new concept. That isn't 100% true and Valve even switched up the drafting system itself to encourage more diverse line ups. Almost every dominant hero was only slightly nerfed, while every other hero received some sort of buff. Some of them were interactions with specific powers or abilities, such as illusions or black king bar. One hero received a turn speed buff, which was a huge help for him to get a spell off quicker. Its all super tiny, minor stuff. But in the end, none of the dominant heroes fell fully out of favor and a lot of the other heroes worked their way into the meta(in specific cases). The hands off approach people are advocating from BW may not be the best approach, which is what the discussion is about. Just because it worked then does not mean it is perfect or ideal. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 07 2013 06:34 Plansix wrote: This is lost on me, but I sure they nerf or buffed a lot of stuff and it either became fun or not fun? Wizards of the coast released a magic the gathering set that literally broke the game. Everything was too fast, too powerful, etc... The masses whined. In response, Wizards of the Coast followed the set up with one the slowest, safest, least broken set magic had ever had. Nothing was too good, nothing was too bad, everything was "balanced" And it bored the player base to tears. What Wizards of the coast realized is that you need to give players dynamic cards that are only powerful in narrow situations and give them support cards that are useful in many situations but are not very powerful in and of themselves. Making everything powerful and making everything balanced produced the same results bad. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 07 2013 06:50 Thieving Magpie wrote: Wizards of the coast released a magic the gathering set that literally broke the game. Everything was too fast, too powerful, etc... The masses whined. In response, Wizards of the Coast followed the set up with one the slowest, safest, least broken set magic had ever had. Nothing was too good, nothing was too bad, everything was "balanced" And it bored the player base to tears. What Wizards of the coast realized is that you need to give players dynamic cards that are only powerful in narrow situations and give them support cards that are useful in many situations but are not very powerful in and of themselves. Making everything powerful and making everything balanced produced the same results bad. Its almost like they tried new things and learned as they went, and the community learned with them. That we need both the stupidly broken and safety. I feel there is a lesson here. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 07 2013 06:52 Plansix wrote: Its almost like they tried new things and learned as they went, and the community learned with them. That we need both the stupidly broken and safety. I feel there is a lesson here. I always look back to Wizard of the Coast's rocky road to balance when I think about balance in other games. | ||
|
Olferen
United States39 Posts
TLDR: I am sad that Act.-Blizzard and their games are just a pale comparison to their predecessors as separate entities and games that existed for 10 years. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 07 2013 07:10 Olferen wrote: This thread makes me sad in that everyone realizes Blizzard is a shadow of its former self. I remember when SC2 was coming out everyone was expecting the end of everyone's social lives and it wasn't the greatest rts ever. Then Diablo 3 and once again everyone expected the greatest game ever and it was just a pale shadow of its glorious predecessor. I can't speak on WoW as I never played it, but I've heard many things about Cataclysm and how it made it easier etc etc. TLDR: I am sad that Act.-Blizzard and their games are just a pale comparison to their predecessors as separate entities and games that existed for 10 years. In defense of D3--it is many times better and more complex than D2. There is more things viable, interactions are cleaner, and the trade system is hundreds of times better. What people failed to realize is that D2 was fun when they were young, but now they need more than just the daily grind to enjoy a hack and slash. D3 was harder, less cookie cutter, and and less buggy than D2 Its not the game that is at fault, its the nerd scene. EDIT I still enjoy D2 more than D3, but I am honest with myself that it has nothing to do with the design of D3. I just don't enjoy the act of killing the same monsters for the Nth time in a row using the same 1-3 spells over and over and over again. | ||
|
DKR
United Kingdom622 Posts
Some units have the issue of being niche in the meta like corrupters in TvZ but that's only because another unit (BL) isn't in the meta. A BL buff would reintroduce the corrupter to that match up. I think, broadly speaking, Blizzard do a good job balancing. 2012 Lings of Liberty lasted far too long but it did force Mech TvZ to become viable whereas before it wasn't explored in any great depth and that's the only real example of an abysmal decision by them. The people who blame balance for the stagnation/deflation of the SC2 viewership numbers are missing the fundamental point that team games are more fun/accessible and easier at entry level for people. SC2 was always going to look like this, at least until LotV is released. EDIT: I do think a stubbornness to reconsider poor macro mechanic designs such as the warp gate is bad though. Blizzard basically made a couple of items the focal point of the 'new and improved' SC:BW and when they didn't work, they felt they'd invested too much in them to not follow through. | ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
It's just a better esports game design is all. Blizzard should have jumped on it when it was dota1. | ||
|
Snorkle
United States1648 Posts
edit: for some interesting reading on the MTG future league http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/251 | ||
|
synd
Bulgaria586 Posts
But from a game-design point of view - competitive Dota2 is CM which means that players 'balance' the game by baning heroes they consider 'OP' or are actually hard countering them. If this gets implented in a SC2-ish way - cool, but what remains? SC2 is not diversive at all in most of the matchups. You have mostly 1-2 styles that can be played while most of the time always 1 of the styles is way better than the 2nd. So the problem is just that SC2 isn't diverse. It needs way more units that can lead to pro gamers creating viable playstyles with them (not just allins) | ||
|
kidcrash
United States623 Posts
As far as the armory upgrades, once again just keep air and ground uopgrade separate and increase the siege tank damage upgrade intervals to +10 for each level. Protoss could deal with this but zerg might be a bit unhappy. You'd probably need to lower the cost and time for Hive research so that zerg would be on equal footing and have more strategies at their disposal. | ||
|
HeavenResign
United States702 Posts
On September 07 2013 06:39 Plansix wrote: Shaking up the meta and providing player with new ways to play the game is what keeps the game fresh and exciting. So the point is that while there are under or unused units in the game, those should be patched/buffed to pull them into the meta and make the game more interesting. I guess I inherently don't care for this approach then. The whole concept of trends/'meta' in gameplay means that some units will invariably be out of fashion and come back into fashion. It's one thing to keep trying to improve the game if a unit isn't in a good spot in any matchup, but I just don't think the ending point should be patches with the sole intent to change the trends of gameplay - that should be left to the maps and users. To each his own, I guess. | ||
|
Muecke
Germany150 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
EFermi
United States165 Posts
I think Blizzard have a lot of work to do on this game, since the strategic element of the game is basically gone. It is baffling to me how Terrans still haven't been changed for TvZ. | ||
|
ScLight
United States26 Posts
| ||
|
FLuE
United States1012 Posts
Now before everyone freaks out about paying... I think we do take for granted that Battle.net is pretty cool for free, they very easy could have charged a month service for it, especially since there was a lot of effort to make the single player campaign a stand alone entity. Only reason I bring it up is that if we paid a small fee for Battle.Net so that Blizzard generated revenue after sales from Battle.Net I think it would get more attention in terms of balancing, patches, adding/removing units and spells ,etc. As it stands right now, I imagine their budget is basically a certain percent of sales from HotS to put toward patching HotS, supporting the competitive scene, etc. I don't mind paying more to get more, and maybe that is the problem. Why would they support the game, either just Battle.net in general or the competitive scene, after we buy the game? I know they want us to buy the expansion, but they know we will buy it either way. Just a thought. I would certainly pay for battle.net if it meant better post release development. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
