EPTWhat can Blizzard Learn from MOBA Balancing/Design - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DayvieJones
Germany10 Posts
| ||
|
TyrantPotato
Australia1541 Posts
Terran no marines zerg no zerglings Protoss no sentries Would result in some hilarious smackdowns lol | ||
|
etherealfall
Australia476 Posts
| ||
|
desRow
Canada2654 Posts
| ||
|
larse
1611 Posts
| ||
|
BuddhaMonk
781 Posts
| ||
|
Mahanaim
Korea (South)1002 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 07 2013 11:54 desRow wrote: I actually enjoy the linear PvTs but I think PvZ and PvP has enough diversity right now. I agree with your post tho and hopefully blizzard considers a more pro active stance on balance. I love how Protoss runs the gamut of full aggression and full turtle in all its match ups with equal grace. Either you're holding drops, stopping pushes, or using warp prism/stargate harass to whittle down the opponents. Some terrans pull SCVs, others don't, it's a great place right now. | ||
|
Phanekim
United States777 Posts
| ||
|
Taipoka
Brazil1224 Posts
On September 07 2013 12:34 BuddhaMonk wrote: They can learn how to make a quality F2P game. How can someone post something after this. Clap Clap | ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
| ||
|
TeslasPigeon
464 Posts
I rather have a pool of balanced maps, imbalanced maps toward certain races, small maps, large maps, maps with 4 actual spawning positions. All the maps currently in the pool play very similar and nearly all strategies between all the races can be used interchangeably on the maps. We're still playing Daybreak-esque (2011) maps and it's 2013. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 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. That's circular thinking. If unit X is under-utilized at a certain point in the game it because strategy Y is dominant with use of unit Z. If Blizzard intervenes to "shake things up" then a buffed unit X may alter the meta-game leading to another dominant strategy YY and leading to unit Z falling out of the Meta. Blizzard then patches unit Z leading to yet another repeat of the cycle. Ultimately, Blizzard gets locked into a loop of chasing the tail of the Meta where it will always be behind because the Meta is usually ahead of where we individually think it is. It's a flawed approach and ultimately will make the game less interesting. This is an interesting post by the OP, but really it seems to me to be little more than a well dressed version of familiar complaints that the game is stagnating and needs diversity and that Blizzard needs to step in to keep the game "exciting". | ||
|
YyapSsap
New Zealand1511 Posts
Instead of adjusting numbers (small buffs) to units that are used all the time they could instead target 3 units (that are rarely used) from each respective races and slightly re-design them (or buff them somewhat). This would likely to add more depth to the current meta since "adjusting" the core units normally leads to more instability in the meta where suddenly its favoring race A instead now instead of the previous race B or completely shutting down certain unit compositions/builds. But going along with such an idea, I'm imagining a scenario where blizzard devs decide to do PTRs once per month. Where they open polls from the previous month to find out what players (and from pros) would like to change in terms of unit abilities, unit stats or even the unit art for one specific unit per race. Example 1: Polls show majority of the terran players want tanks to become relevant again in all matchups. A second poll is used to find what exactly players/users have in mind, could be supply/cost or damage etc. Blizzard than decides to give it back the flat 60 damage again (for example of course!). An incentive is now given to get tanks over widow mines for TvZ. Polls show majority of the zerg players want more tools to deal with MMMM in the mid game. A second poll is used to find what exactly players/users have in mind, and it ranges from infestor rework/buff to even re-introducing units like the lurker. Blizzard than gives it a go to implement the lurker back, giving it a flat 25 damage in a line (so it can two shot marines without combat shield, and two shot combat shield marines with +1 wep upgrade). MMMM will now have a hard time going up ramps or fortified positions giving zerg that crucial time to get to hive on certain maps. Polls show majority of the protoss players want immortals to look less boring or something to spice up the unit. A second poll is used to find what exactly players/users have in mind, could be that it now shoots plasma projectiles instead of the current invisible animation etc. Blizzard than decides to give it such animation with a meaner sound. Immortals are now a unit full of badassery even if the unit design is stale. All three following are implemented to be play tested on various maps (Ive specifically made up an example with one race going ahead with unit balance, unit re-design and a change to ingame animation). And non of these could make it into the actual patch but it would be awesome to actually test these things and really settle the theorycrafting that goes on and on. If they do this im sure it will be alot more healthier for the devs and the user base because now we are now participating into the tests and i.e. really find out the actual solutions that could make the game much more interesting than it currently stands instead of constant whining and fighting. I actually wouldn't mind if there was TL's SC2 community PTR so that we can test some of the ideas thrown around in these discussions as some are actually really good. Not like a complete revamp e.g. starbow or onegoal, but simple changes to unit balance, abilities or even art. 3 changes, one per race (if not, general to the game e.g. pathing, game speed, control groups), once a month for play testing. Tanks, lurkers, immortal animation one month. Next month pathing, infestors, speedlots vs charge etc. Just some food for thought. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
| ||
|
Canucklehead
Canada5074 Posts
| ||
|
itsMAHVELbaybee
292 Posts
The "supposed" most popular mode such as team games are extremely dry and boring. 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, are very predictable, not chaotic. Take the BGH games of old -- random start locations, close spawns, being able to one base the entire way through, ghetto cannon rushes and seige tank cliff dropping. Although more chaotic, it was definitely more fun than any team game of 3v3 or 4v4 I played in SC2. It's too late for SC2. We gotta wait for SC3. | ||
|
YyapSsap
New Zealand1511 Posts
On September 07 2013 16:07 aZealot wrote: But aren't these changes already possible for players in custom games? Don't Blizzard already test these out internally? Why does Blizzard have to make a monthly PTR when the community can do many of these things themselves (i.e. reworking units etc). And complete revamps are possible and accessible to play, such as Starbow and Onegoal but most people don't play them for various reasons. I've never tried but have watched a couple of vods. They've looked interesting but nothing special. Yeah they have always been possible on custom games. But no one has taken the initiative other than complete revamps. They say they test these things internally, but why not get the community involved (especially since the game is ultimately for us , pros and e-sports, not them)? Plus they always try to hide their internal results e.g. the debate on pathing. It'd actually be better for the game if they are actively interacting with the community. And like Ive said, no one has taken the initiative on doing the small changes or community led PTRs so that these data/feedbacks are sent back to blizzard. I tend to think it'd be pretty awesome. | ||
|
PineapplePizza
United States749 Posts
On September 07 2013 19:30 YyapSsap wrote: Yeah they have always been possible on custom games. But no one has taken the initiative other than complete revamps. They say they test these things internally, but why not get the community involved (especially since the game is ultimately for us , pros and e-sports, not them)? Plus they always try to hide their internal results e.g. the debate on pathing. It'd actually be better for the game if they are actively interacting with the community. And like Ive said, no one has taken the initiative on doing the small changes or community led PTRs so that these data/feedbacks are sent back to blizzard. I tend to think it'd be pretty awesome. Nobody plays those maps. You advertise, sit in the lobby for hours at a time, and then finally one guy shows up and tells you to fuck off. There is 0% chance of someone with any pull in the community showing up to play test maps. Why should they? Blizzard ignored their feedback in the actual beta, why would they listen to them after playing some silly edited map? | ||
|
YyapSsap
New Zealand1511 Posts
On September 07 2013 19:56 PineapplePizza wrote: Nobody plays those maps. You advertise, sit in the lobby for hours at a time, and then finally one guy shows up and tells you to fuck off. There is 0% chance of someone with any pull in the community showing up to play test maps. Why should they? Blizzard ignored their feedback in the actual beta, why would they listen to them after playing some silly edited map? Thats the sad fact isn't it  | ||
| ||
