|
Constructive criticism is welcome, but no mindless SC2/Developer bashing in this thread. |
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On January 26 2014 01:47 kinsky wrote:
"You could even open a testmap in the arcade mode where players can test their own idears with others (let it be GMs) in the way that one can set the damage or damagetypes of all units the way they want it to (even new upgrades, costs or times). Imagine GMs testing fun stuff or real cool idears there and you could observe it - permanently. You could even add a voting system where diamond, master and gm players could give feedback to a list of "top-changes" set in a list where people place their "builds" which they think adresses recent (or permanent) problems (top changes at the top of a list to make them most visible like for arcade maps). The community could do all the work for you in a democratic way and you guys would be spared from all the hate and insults. Sure there would be a lot of bulls-hit but taking only diamond+ players into account and given a voting system all the s-hit would disapear somewere at the end of the list ... you could still see into it and decide what you like. ... Just an idea."
read in battle.net forum. i think its a great idea!
Blizzards are EXTREMELY lazy to do things like this. It's easier for them to ro random changes every 6 months.
|
@kinsky : I don't think it'd be a great idea. Imagine a player of a race wins a GSL, the following day every player of the other two races will be suggesting changes to make his mu more advantageous. You can already make balance maps of your own if you want. I'm more of a "let David Kim do his job" guy, though some suggestions and changes really made me mad. We've got to have a guy to take the actual decisions.
|
It needs only a few guys to make decisions, yes.
On the other hand there could still be votings what should be nerfed or buffed. But who is doing these votes? If they were anonymous they would have no meaning, since it could be the other race just trying to nerf their opponents. If the votes are no anonymous they arent democratic. And thats an actual problem, having to decide who would be allowed to vote and having enough of each race participating. It would be pretty weird tbh. Its a dilemma u couldnt solve.
U myb could vote for single suggestions yeah. But those single balance issues wouldnt be linked in a thought through way since there are too many options which influences these balance patches can have on each other. What means that if u implement more than one of these, they could be counter-productive.
All in all there has to be a master mind that is really seeing thorugh things, collecting suggestions from different sources (like they are alrdy doing) and being able to make decisions on a high quality thought through basis. And if blizzard stuff is actually intelligent enough for this task, i cant tell.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
I can only tell, that the ladder system mmr/league distribution collapse (especially in team games) is such a major and stupid failure, i cannot explain with words on how much godzilla facepalm this issue is making me feel like.
If blizzard stuff isnt able to solve this since 3 seasons, i have no hope left for improving with this game. Seriously. And im trying to be as realistic and objective as i can here.
|
Can't really see the Hydra change go through. It would be really weird to wait this long to do a change that has been so obvious for ages. Many creative strats are simply there, because Zerg have terrible anti-air.
To have Hydra as a traditional core unit, but still be a glass cannon, just narrows Protoss down the Colossus path even further.
They backed down on their 100% move speed off creep on Hydra speed, Which I think is a more valid change.
Mothership Core I think have more reasonable changes, like vision change from 14 to 10-11, there's no reason for it to have 14 range, when normal air units have 10 range and scouting type air units have 11 range.
Time Warp should maybe affect friendly units and not affect massive units.
Cannon I think should be remained untouched, it just limits Protoss playstyle too much, if we have to rely on only Sentries again.
Ghost change is an ugly fix, 75 energy while all other energy units start at 50.
Tempest change could be nice, adds more to the Tempest instead of being a niche unit.
|
On January 26 2014 02:29 ejozl wrote:
Can't really see the Hydra change go through. It would be really weird to wait this long to do a change that has been so obvious for ages. Many creative strats are simply there, because Zerg have terrible anti-air.
To have Hydra as a traditional core unit, but still be a glass cannon, just narrows Protoss down the Colossus path even further.
They backed down on their 100% move speed off creep on Hydra speed, Which I think is a more valid change.
Mothership Core I think have more reasonable changes, like vision change from 14 to 10-11, there's no reason for it to have 14 range, when normal air units have 10 range and scouting type air units have 11 range.
Time Warp should maybe affect friendly units and not affect massive units.
Cannon I think should be remained untouched, it just limits Protoss playstyle too much, if we have to rely on only Sentries again.
Ghost change is an ugly fix, 75 energy while all other energy units start at 50.
Tempest change could be nice, adds more to the Tempest instead of being a niche unit.
How about the Starbow-inspired change to allow cannons to be affected by chronoboost? (shoot X times faster for 20 seconds)
|
On January 26 2014 01:43 Salient wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2014 01:30 juicyjames wrote:Not sure if David Kim's new post has been postedThank you for your feedback. We've also been gathering a lot of pro feedback, and as always, there's a lot of both positive and negative. However, because we're not trying to patch any of these changes to the live game and just want to test them out on the balance test map, we'll go ahead with these changes.
That doesn't mean we didn't take any of the feedback into consideration and we did hear a lot of points that we also have concerns on, but let's make sure to keep an eye out for these various concerns during the testing phase.
Please remember we're just testing things so we can always dial things back, remove changes completely, and/or try different changes during the testing phase.
Thank you.
-David Kim That was a lot of words to simply say: "don't worry, we're testing it."
I think there has to be a reason for him to do that. Maybe a lot of people don't read his posts all the way through or something.
|
|
|
Possible slight solution to getting more balance feedback -> Make unranked players play on balance test maps (and make it obvious) when they match against another unranked player.
(if they match vs a player playing ranked things would continue to go as normal, and unranked vs unranked would be prioritized by search system)
I feel like that could get way more feedback :D
|
On January 26 2014 07:13 Maasked wrote:
Possible slight solution to getting more balance feedback -> Make unranked players play on balance test maps (and make it obvious) when they match against another unranked player.
(if they match vs a player playing ranked things would continue to go as normal, and unranked vs unranked would be prioritized by search system)
I feel like that could get way more feedback :D
yes this is a good idea
cause idk about any1 else but i feel like barely any1 ever plays the balance test maps
i never do at least but prolly would if it was in unranked auto
|
On January 26 2014 07:15 JIJI_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2014 07:13 Maasked wrote:
Possible slight solution to getting more balance feedback -> Make unranked players play on balance test maps (and make it obvious) when they match against another unranked player.
(if they match vs a player playing ranked things would continue to go as normal, and unranked vs unranked would be prioritized by search system)
I feel like that could get way more feedback :D yes this is a good idea cause idk about any1 else but i feel like barely any1 ever plays the balance test maps i never do at least but prolly would if it was in unranked auto
That crossed my mind too besides the question how this test maps really work out for Blizzard.
I mean there is no matchmaking for them so a "test" match between silver and master doesn´t have any relevant data. Also the few times i tried i never got an opponent and even if both are equally matched as long as the change isn´t massive you "feel" not that much of a difference because the situation(s) they want to fix doesn´t occure every game.
Or is it for pro´s that are asked to play directly by blizzard? That they don´t need a ptr and can play on regular Bnet?
|
ya like idk how they even get meaningful data from the test maps it could just b for show at this point and hopefully just depend on their internal test (i hope lol) who knows they have made some questionable decisions before so at this point i feel like since game is outta beta they do limited testing and just roll with it
|
I've been interested in that too.
How much 'good' data actually comes from balance test maps?
|
Blizzard:
"Oh gee, we have this ultra strong late game composition from Zerg where they sit there and mass X, Y and Z to pick away at toss so we are going to give toss a 'counter' unit that picks away at zerg, ARENT WE BRILLIANT?"
I swear their brains have the plasticity of senior citizens.
You don't break up a siege strategy with more siege, you break it up w/ mobility. Think about ways of encouraging Protoss to circumvent and out maneuver the late game Zerg army, whether that's modification of concepts such as late game mothership based recall or movement speed... I'd say Arbiters but thats not a real option.
Generally, stop being so dedicated to this rock paper scissor form of game design, is this a Dustin Browder thing? Who in that company is so linear minded? Jeez.
User was warned for this post
|
@willyallthewei : that's actually very clever. Giving the Mothership an ability that enhances mobility would surely be a better solution than stronger tempests.
|
On January 26 2014 01:20 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2014 00:14 Riner1212 wrote:
I think a reasonable nerf for photon overcharge would be to make it an upgrade for the mothership core to be able to access the use of it as aand as well a time warp 150/150 for photon over charge and 100/100 for time warp. I think by doing so, a protoss player would think three or four times before committing to an all in and if it fails they will be punished by it. right now their gimicky all ins and cheese is saved by the photon overcharge and they are getting away with way to many risks, which is not fair. This makes absolutely no sense and defeats the entire purpose of having the mothership core. Time warp as an upgrade? Sure. But photon overcharge is basically mandatory for Protoss to survive against Terran drops because none of the basic units can keep up with boosted medivacs. Take away photon overcharge and Protoss would have to open phoenix or blink every game just to survive. We've all seen games where Protoss loses their mothership core and then proceeds to die to a Terran simply boosting back and forth between bases and the Protoss gets completely ripped apart. Seriously, that would be like saying "Terran's all-ins are too good, so we're going to make bunkers require additional tech to get". It's completely unreasonable and does not address the issue of all-ins in the least and just messes with the ability to play defensive in any way.
I am sorry to say but your reasoning doesnt make any sense, the fact is that photon over charge allows protoss players to open with a risky build and it is not punishable by any means necessary, even the slightest form or aggressive push is shut down by well placed forcefield and photon overcharge pretty much cleans up everything and for instance, when a portoss opens blinks.. he can either commit to it or FAKE IT and contain a terran player so he can tech to high templar, colossuss, and chrono his upgrades to late game which is now achievable by way earlier then it should be, so starting from the beginning terran has sever disadvantage. the early game options and 0 risks involved doing this openings puts terran at a complete disadvantage.
|
On January 26 2014 07:29 SC2Toastie wrote:
I've been interested in that too.
How much 'good' data actually comes from balance test maps?
The thing is we don´t know and if you want to be negative you can say that every argument about balance can be taken on this kind of testing like small sample size(we don´t know), only the top 0.01% matter for balance, randomnes within the game, different skill level, the metagame changes for different races at different speed due to the design of the race but all is overlooked by one thing:
Its a "map".
Many people pointed the things above out but i am missing someone screeming at blizzard "testing balance changes on a single map doesn´t make any sense".
Lets take the same patch and put it on Steps of War and on Whirlwind. The same changes can have different impact depending on the map they are played or tested.
In this case this is especially important because most people think (or at least say) that the main problem is TvP which is highly influenzed by maps. Blink allin for example is almost the same since hots beta and was even around in WoL and a big part of it now is that most of the current maps are at least blink friendly or even a bit "blinkimba". Even a map like Daybreak, which a lot of people consider "the best sc2 map this far or at least the most stable" would be bad this time because it is just not blink or rush map.
So trying a patch that influenzes the game testing on a single randomly selected map doesnt make sense at least for me.
Or am i missing something?
|
Why does buffing Ghosts help with Mech? I understand that Ghosts are great vP, but last time I checked they were Biological and came from the Barracks...sooo?
Additionally, despite the tone in willyallthewei's post a few above me, I have to agree with him regarding tempests.
Creating and designing units especially for specific situations in the metagame is exactly what has gotten us into all the stale late-game situations that SC2 has been plagued with. Willy said it, it seems like a lot of SC2 unit design is based around rock-paper-scissors (i.e. what unit counters what unit?) rather than designing units that have great utility and de-emphasized direct counters in a direct confrontation.
We need more flexibility in regards to dealing with specific situations, not less. Designing specifically one unit (Tempests) to deal specifically with mass static and swarmhost is a less than desirable approach for someone who wants this game to continue to get better and keep me interested.
|
I think the only problem with the hydra buff is that it'd make all-ins too strong. Otherwise, I think hydras are pretty damn mediocre. I'd rather see an hp buff or have them come with 6 range. that being said, I can't tell you how many times I've went roach/hydra vs pure roach and have been rolled over just by a slight concave disadvantage. The units just aren't that geud out of special situations.
Late game PvZ is fucking awful, but i don't think this is the way to fix it. I don't think protoss needs anymore buffs, swarm hosts are just retarded units. If you don't play the defensive swarm host way, you have to chance it with an all-in or a mass-muta base trade. Those are the only ways to play as far as I see it. On most maps, it's pretty easy for toss to turtle on 3 base really fucking fast and just play defensively with cannons, overcharge, and a few of whatever tech they have seeping out. And these changes are only going to encourage more all-ins and base trades from zerg.
|
On January 26 2014 09:27 Sephiren wrote:
Why does buffing Ghosts help with Mech? I understand that Ghosts are great vP, but last time I checked they were Biological and came from the Barracks...sooo?
Additionally, despite the tone in willyallthewei's post a few above me, I have to agree with him regarding tempests.
Creating and designing units especially for specific situations in the metagame is exactly what has gotten us into all the stale late-game situations that SC2 has been plagued with. Willy said it, it seems like a lot of SC2 unit design is based around rock-paper-scissors (i.e. what unit counters what unit?) rather than designing units that have great utility and de-emphasized direct counters in a direct confrontation.
We need more flexibility in regards to dealing with specific situations, not less. Designing specifically one unit (Tempests) to deal specifically with mass static and swarmhost is a less than desirable approach for someone who wants this game to continue to get better and keep me interested.
cause Mech needs EMP to fight at all vs Protoss (immortals etc)
and Blizzard doesnt seem to want to add +shield damage to mech units, and doesnt want EMP to be on mech units either
|
On January 26 2014 09:43 mikumegurine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2014 09:27 Sephiren wrote:
Why does buffing Ghosts help with Mech? I understand that Ghosts are great vP, but last time I checked they were Biological and came from the Barracks...sooo?
Additionally, despite the tone in willyallthewei's post a few above me, I have to agree with him regarding tempests.
Creating and designing units especially for specific situations in the metagame is exactly what has gotten us into all the stale late-game situations that SC2 has been plagued with. Willy said it, it seems like a lot of SC2 unit design is based around rock-paper-scissors (i.e. what unit counters what unit?) rather than designing units that have great utility and de-emphasized direct counters in a direct confrontation.
We need more flexibility in regards to dealing with specific situations, not less. Designing specifically one unit (Tempests) to deal specifically with mass static and swarmhost is a less than desirable approach for someone who wants this game to continue to get better and keep me interested. cause Mech needs EMP to fight at all vs Protoss (immortals etc) and Blizzard doesnt seem to want to add +shield damage to mech units, and doesnt want EMP to be on mech units either
Ya that's still sort of weird though, because they want to make Mech viable, but to do that they want you to not use a Mech unit. So they want you to play Mech with Bio units...which would be Bio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
