EPTThe oracle suggestion is a bit too much, maybe 125 instead of 150 though.
PS- I don't think that WM nerf is enough.
6 possible balance changes - David Kim - Page 32
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
The oracle suggestion is a bit too much, maybe 125 instead of 150 though. PS- I don't think that WM nerf is enough. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
Waise
3165 Posts
On September 24 2013 10:04 MarlieChurphy wrote: PS- I don't think that WM nerf is enough. seriously? as a zerg player i not only think it's enough but feel it might tip tvz distinctly in our favor. the siege tank dps buff isn't really significant enough to offset it at all | ||
|
MrRicewife
Canada515 Posts
| ||
|
xyzz
567 Posts
On September 24 2013 10:08 Waise wrote: seriously? as a zerg player i not only think it's enough but feel it might tip tvz distinctly in our favor. the siege tank dps buff isn't really significant enough to offset it at all Why do people so often start with lies about their main race when they try to lobby their balance ideas to the forum community? "As a Terran player I'm baffled by how overpowered my race will be after these changes!" Sure. Terrans have played Marine/Tank before, only now the Marine/Tank will be better than before due to the rapid fire Tanks that don't require siege mode to be researched and now benefit from more easily accessible/cheaper vehicle upgrades, and the WM are still available in the mix too but will kill a few less Lings/Blings in the large engagements than before due to smaller aoe. Don't try to act all dramatic please. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13974 Posts
Oh i remember, did you see how crazy that PvP in the WCS season 2 global finals was? cause I dont | ||
|
-Kyo-
Japan1926 Posts
On September 24 2013 10:03 xyzz wrote: What's really dumb is the people on forums ridiculing David Kim and basically declaring themselves superior game designers despite having absolutely no work experience on that level in the field. Not one poster in this thread has made a convincing argument yet on why the Protoss changes supposedly don't make sense and completed that argument with an alternate change (that makes more sense since we're using that terminology) that achieves a roughly equal increase in army efficiency / race win rates. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=429992¤tpage=16#319 Feel free to reply I'd like to hear what you think. As far as I can tell this has been the issue the majority of good, rational protoss players have been speaking of since 2010. Read below for elaboration. Also, let me be the first person to inform you: Asymmetrically balanced games rely a lot on the players, not the game designers. If the designer finds that the players are unable to play to the degree, in this instance, the other two races are able to it is then that the designer steps in and makes whatever reasonable changes need to be made. To the above, this has yet to happen in any significant sense for protoss. If you take a step back with an open mind and look at the implications of the other race changes in this thread it ought to be clear that is still the case. Simply because you change the cost of an oracle, or the movement speed of a DT does not mean either unit gains more 'utility'. They are still fulfilling the same purpose they were before. This is the core of the issue. | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
On September 24 2013 10:08 Waise wrote: seriously? as a zerg player i not only think it's enough but feel it might tip tvz distinctly in our favor. the siege tank dps buff isn't really significant enough to offset it at all Well how big is .65 really? The size of a baneling or something? I don't actually know. I think the splash radius of the thing is the least of the problems it presents. It is a step in the right direction, but it seems like its a blind man's foot, and he doesn't have his cane. | ||
|
Waise
3165 Posts
On September 24 2013 10:14 xyzz wrote: ??? you think i'm lying? the reason i posted my race was to give some perspective on my opinion, since i've been frustrated by mines like any other zerg, and am happy to see them nerfed, but am not sure if it's a reasonable nerf or not. Why do people so often start with lies about their main race when they try to lobby their balance ideas to the forum community? On September 24 2013 10:14 xyzz wrote: "As a Terran player I'm baffled by how overpowered my race will be after these changes!" Sure. Terrans have played Marine/Tank before, only now the Marine/Tank will be better than before due to the rapid fire Tanks that don't require siege mode to be researched and now benefit from more easily accessible/cheaper vehicle upgrades, and the WM are still available in the mix too but will kill a few less Lings/Blings in the large engagements than before due to smaller aoe. Don't try to act all dramatic please. ok, that's fine, you disagree with me, but where are you getting that i'm "acting dramatic"? because i posted my race? that seems like a really weird assumption. i'm just discussing my views like anyone else here, not sure what the problem is. | ||
|
Radiag
Germany28 Posts
Widow Mine range decrease: Good in theory but just too much Siege Tanks: Sounds good, lets see how that goes in testing Oracles cheaper: NO! Oracles do enough damage for their cost unless you are in higher leagues it is hard to deal with them and that gives Protoss just more All-in possibilties and nothing else than that. Dark Templar faster: Again NO! Just more DT all-ins. David Kim, protoss isnt playing defensive because they ONLY can do that, they have enough offensive tools, but the MSC just provides such good defense that it is the safest and easiest way to play and win. The ONLY change that could get Protosses out of their bases and get the matchups balanced are a Widow Mine nerf + a HUGE msc nerf, Photon Overcharge cost @125 energy aswell as decrease its time to 30 sec. Then Protoss cant just turtle, tech up fast and sit safely behind their big Nexus Cannon until they have their Deathball! | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44257 Posts
As a Protoss player, I've never had a problem with my dark templar being "too slow". What a silly random buff. You use dark templar for harassing and catching your opponent off guard and all that good stuff, but he doesn't need to be any faster. Now if high templars were faster, then that would be awesome... they wouldn't get sniped from behind due to them being slower than my whole frickin army. And making the oracle cheaper is supposed to make them appear more frequently in the mid and late game? I don't think so. We don't make oracles after the early game because any anti-air wrecks them, not because they're too expensive. And quite frankly, I'm okay with them just being an early game option. If I want to incorporate air into my main army, I can add a few phoenixes or void rays. | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
On September 24 2013 10:19 Radiag wrote: Widow Mine range decrease: Good in theory but just too much It's not a range decrease. | ||
|
xN.07)MaK
Spain1159 Posts
On September 24 2013 10:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Such stupid ideas for Protoss buff -.-' The ones for Terran and Zerg are at least sensible. As a Protoss player, I've never had a problem with my dark templar being "too slow". What a silly random buff. You use dark templar for harassing and catching your opponent off guard and all that good stuff, but he doesn't need to be any faster. Now if high templars were faster, then that would be awesome... they wouldn't get sniped from behind due to them being slower than my whole frickin army. And making the oracle cheaper is supposed to make them appear more frequently in the mid and late game? I don't think so. We don't make oracles after the early game because any anti-air wrecks them, not because they're too expensive. And quite frankly, I'm okay with them just being an early game option. If I want to incorporate air into my main army, I can add a few phoenixes or void rays. Wow, I thought I'd never see people wanting to buff the high templar. I mean, it's already freaking good, making it faster would mean destruction in the appropiate hands. | ||
|
ke_ivan
Singapore374 Posts
And protoss needs help late game! not another more powerful all in tactic. I'll be seeing a lot more oracle/void ray/ archon/zealot all-ins. Only in the broodlord infestor days have I seen late-game protoss. and they still lost if they got their archon toilet timing wrong. Roach speed seems fun! i think. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44257 Posts
On September 24 2013 10:27 xN.07)MaK wrote: Wow, I thought I'd never see people wanting to buff the high templar. I mean, it's already freaking good, making it faster would mean destruction in the appropiate hands. I just want it to be able to keep up with the rest of the army, rather than lagging behind. And you can't really make all the other units slower so... | ||
|
xyzz
567 Posts
On September 24 2013 10:15 -Kyo- wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=429992¤tpage=16#319 Feel free to reply I'd like to hear what you think. As far as I can tell this has been the issue the majority of good, rational protoss players have been speaking of since 2010. Read below for elaboration. Also, let me be the first person to inform you: Asymmetrically balanced games rely a lot on the players, not the game designers. If the designer finds that the players are unable to play to the degree, in this instance, the other two races are able to it is then that the designer steps in and makes whatever reasonable changes need to be made. To the above, this has yet to happen in any significant sense for protoss. If you take a step back with an open mind and look at the implications of the other race changes in this thread it ought to be clear that is still the case. Simply because you change the cost of an oracle, or the movement speed of a DT does not mean either unit gains more 'utility'. They are still fulfilling the same purpose they were before. This is the core of the issue. The games rely on the players for testing, not for developing. I can assure you the gamers didn't design Starcraft II. There's a difference you seem unable to grasp, and I suppose this is also why many players (even the 'good, rational players' you talk about) feel the companies that make these games aren't listening or don't somehow understand the issues that seem to annoy a tiny but vocal minority of the customers. The gamers provide data by testing the changes made by people other than gamers by playing the game just like they always have. The developers and staff then analyse the results with their software tools (that the community largely has no knowledge of) and come to conclusions as a design team. Even if a dialogue exists on a forum somewhere (beta-test forums for example) between some community representative and the actual testers (gamers), it doesn't mean that the written opinions of amateurs amounts to anything more than one more piece of somewhat unreliable data in the mosaic. Naturally the designers are human as well and will always make mistakes either due to time constraints, financial motivations, incorrectly analysed data, lack of imagination, company political reasons and what not, but it doesn't mean that anyone else could've necessarily done a better job. Your comments on whether the Oracle and the DT still fulfills the exact same role as before is moot, since noone in the design team made the claim that they were trying to change the role of these units. To me, as an amateur, it seems like Kim's team is just looking for a few tiny toggles they could turn up a notch and see if it improves Protoss play enough to provide somewhat better results. Whether the race requires a massive overhaul or not is up for debate (noone can even agree on the criteria of success or failure in this type of design, whether its sales or e-sports popularity or whatever), so a discussion about the way such a massive overhaul should be approached in is premature. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On September 24 2013 10:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Such stupid ideas for Protoss buff -.-' The ones for Terran and Zerg are at least sensible. As a Protoss player, I've never had a problem with my dark templar being "too slow". What a silly random buff. You use dark templar for harassing and catching your opponent off guard and all that good stuff, but he doesn't need to be any faster. Now if high templars were faster, then that would be awesome... they wouldn't get sniped from behind due to them being slower than my whole frickin army. And making the oracle cheaper is supposed to make them appear more frequently in the mid and late game? I don't think so. We don't make oracles after the early game because any anti-air wrecks them, not because they're too expensive. And quite frankly, I'm okay with them just being an early game option. If I want to incorporate air into my main army, I can add a few phoenixes or void rays. I'm not against the speed upgrade for the DT, in principle, although it does seem unnecessary. That said, if it were to go through, I'd prefer that it were an upgrade. Either at TC or at Shrine (or - if one of my Protoss prayers are answered at a Archives merged into Shrine). I like that HT are slow and fragile. They should be. And the difference in speed means that Protoss players have to control them well, and babysit them to maximise their effectiveness. The difference in the speed of many Protoss units is one of the things I like about playing Protoss. I'd hate if they made it all more uniform speedwise. I agree about the Oracle, though. Either make it cheaper mineral wise and/or help Protoss players distinguish themselves in their Oracle usage by superior control. Maybe by tweaking damage and range and acceleration. Anyway, it will pay to test this out and see. I'll be surprised if most of these changes go through, though. Either in the current form, or revised. I do believe that the mech air/ground upgrade will go through. It's been on their agenda for a very long time. | ||
|
MurDeRsc2
133 Posts
| ||
|
ke_ivan
Singapore374 Posts
On September 24 2013 10:15 -Kyo- wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=429992¤tpage=16#319 Feel free to reply I'd like to hear what you think. As far as I can tell this has been the issue the majority of good, rational protoss players have been speaking of since 2010. Read below for elaboration. Also, let me be the first person to inform you: Asymmetrically balanced games rely a lot on the players, not the game designers. If the designer finds that the players are unable to play to the degree, in this instance, the other two races are able to it is then that the designer steps in and makes whatever reasonable changes need to be made. To the above, this has yet to happen in any significant sense for protoss. If you take a step back with an open mind and look at the implications of the other race changes in this thread it ought to be clear that is still the case. Simply because you change the cost of an oracle, or the movement speed of a DT does not mean either unit gains more 'utility'. They are still fulfilling the same purpose they were before. This is the core of the issue. I think -Kyo- gets it. Game design is a conversation between the designer and players. It's not about anyone being superior. I'm sure there's some rationale behind faster DTs and cheaper oracles, but maybe there are other points of view for him to consider as well. | ||
| ||
