|
On February 07 2014 01:13 Loccstana wrote:
I think the biggest problem here is Blizzard's inability to admit mistakes they made and correct them. Take the hellbat for example: It received 3 back to back nerfs, with the cargo size nerf being rather arbitary and hurting late game harassment. Now that the hellbat's damage been nerfed, the hellbat's cargo size should be reverted back to 2. Also whats with the widow mine being at 2 supply? That unit should be 1/2 supply, 1 supply most.
Give the most cost efficent unit in the game a zerglings supply? I think its fair to complain about overpatching things, but so far we havent met a dead end, the games gotten better over time.
|
On February 07 2014 00:31 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 00:02 Big J wrote:
I would really like to read the details from the people who say "DK is dodging questions".
Without rereading, I think he pretty much covered all the questions that were raised. Show nested quote +On February 06 2014 07:20 Pandain wrote: Questions Answered by Topic (relevant parts bolded):Other Compilation by Date Deathballs Why is Starcraft 2 so much more deathball-y than Brood War? Have you thought about changing SC2 to allow for battles that last longer and let players more easily recover from setbacks? + Show Spoiler + We believe armies as a whole are easier to move around and control because of the better pathing and unlimited unit selection.
As far as deathball goes, we believe having to micro armies and their positioning correctly to win major battles is a good thing. We don't like seeing games where two players both just sit back and mass up to their composition before engaging. This is why we're currently looking into the EU late game PvZ issue.
We feel like we've done a lot in this area in HotS, especially compared to the end of Wings. If you recall towards the end of Wings, especially in PvT, both sides often just defended and macroed up for 1 final battle.
We don't think we're completely there yet and will continue working towards a more action packed game where there's a lot of action leading into army vs. army battles sometimes. The end goal in this area in our opinion is not to get rid of mass army vs. mass army scenarios, but more so to have a lot of action, a lot of harassment opportunities, and have each game feeling different.
Why are the developers so resistant towards the idea of changing Warp Gate and Forcefield?
These two specific items have been criticized since the game's beginning as one of the chief reasons Protoss feels more death-bally than the other races, (along with the collosus) and yet there's never been any interest on the developer's part to even have a discussion about them.
Why so resistant? What is so special about Warp Gate and Forcefield that makes them immune in balance talks? + Show Spoiler +
We feel Warp Gates are very race defining for Protoss. It's a completely different way to produce units. Because we want every race to feel unique and asymmetric, we like the design of Warp Gates.
Warp Gates were problematic in the past when 1 base or 2 base all ins were too common. We've addressed this a lot in past years.
We've talked about our stance on Force Fields in the past, and it still remains unchanged. We feel like we get a lot of feedback from forums saying there's no micro anyone can do against Force Fields. However, we just don't see this. For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible? Terran players picking off units on one side of Force Fields and dropping them on the more favorable side is another good example. We believe Force Fields are a very unique ability that sometimes feel there was nothing you could do, but that is okay because there are varying degrees of successes and failures. That is just StarCraft: If DTs come in when I have no detectors I'm dead, but that doesn't mean there was nothing I could have done.
Also, the forcefield answer is weird. Forcefields limit micro from the opponent, or force a disengage. Protosses that are on top of their stuff hardly ever let units escape anymore, except for maybe 8 marines in 1 medivac. Also, DTs are a strategical choice and a risk you take in your build, Forcefields are a tactical occurance with all potential and micro on one player. Thus, again, he 'answers' another question than the one posed. Capitol Ships
David,
What are your plans in order to make "forgotten" units such as Battlecruiser, Broodlord, Viper, etc. usable in high level matches?
Thanks!
Cheers!
+ Show Spoiler +We've learned that capital units such as BCs, Carriers, or Motherships are rare and lose their cool if they were built every game. Imagine every PvT ending with BCs. We are discussing ways to make captial ships more interesting to use and watch so that we can bring these units into play more often in the future. But I wouldn't say there will be changes coming to make this happen any time soon, as this is a tricky area that potentially requires delicate design changes. As I said earlier today, we prefer not to do design changes in a patch if we can, because changing how the unit functions completely will be very confusing to players.
Nor does he reply to 'plans', he says there's 'discussion' and nothing will happen before LOTV. Mech When are you going to nerf the mothership core vision or at least make a balance testmap to try it out. Have you thought of making tanks not suck. Are you planning on fixing the swarmhost any time soon. + Show Spoiler + We wouldn't do a patch without at least testing the change first even if it's only for a few days. We do try our best to talk to pro players every time we do a test map, and our stance is that getting at least a few pros to test a change before we patch is always good. As for when the next balance test map is, we're currently gathering feedback including feedback from the community forums, and we hope to start laying out the actual change list for you guys to have an input on sometime next week.
We don't believe tanks suck. Tanks seem to be a lot more effective in TvZ since the last buff, in TvT they were always very core and still are, and in PvT we do currently agree they're not being used much. But our stance on every unit is that not every single unit has to be used in every matchup. For example, Widow Mine especially before the nerf was considered one of the best units for Terran even though it was only really core in one matchup.
With that said, I'd like to add that exploring mech play possibilities in PvT is still important. We've actually been getting feedback from a few different pros on the KR server in this area, and they've been seeing it a lot more on the ladder. We're hoping to see more of it in tournaments to confirm where mech is at right now in PvT.
Late game Swarm Host PvZ is one of the things at the top of our list to look into right now.
They don't believe Tanks suck. TvT, yes, they're rock solid. TvZ? They ONLY work if you turtle up to 200/200 and then still are countered really easilly. They suck in TvP but we don't care because niche units are OK (see Ghost/Banshee/Mine/Hellbat/Tank/BC/Raven > all units with limited usability, Carrier/VoidRay for Toss, Hydra for Zerg). Half of the Terran arsenal is 'niche' and that is "their stance". Feedback from Korean pros about mech interests me the most. Why are they spending time practicing something they won't use in their tournament matches???
The comment about Mines is silly. The only reason they are core is that Mutalisk got a buff and became unmanagable without.What are you guys thoughts on the raven.
I have the feeling only the raven makes mech in TvZ a viabel option.
But i also see a lot of zergs complaining about the ravens power.
Do you have plans with the raven in the future? + Show Spoiler + We like the unit as a whole. The main thing we're watching for with this unit is the mass Raven case in TvZ that allows Terran to just turtle the whole game while making a ridiculous number of Ravens. If this becomes a common trend or one of the best ways to play, we would need to address that. Do you see any problems with Zerg of lacking Anti-Air especially early (for example phoenix harass) and lategame (for example vs. Mass Raven/Battlecruiser) + Show Spoiler +In PvZ, we don't currently think Phoenix openers are problematic. It is a very core opener for Protoss, but doesn't cause major problems. Late game mass Raven/BC turtling play is something we're watching for. If it becomes clear that it's an issue, we'll take steps to address it.
Ofc, Phoenix comment was a stupid question Strength of Tanks When are you going to nerf the mothership core vision or at least make a balance testmap to try it out. Have you thought of making tanks not suck. Are you planning on fixing the swarmhost any time soon. + Show Spoiler + We wouldn't do a patch without at least testing the change first even if it's only for a few days. We do try our best to talk to pro players every time we do a test map, and our stance is that getting at least a few pros to test a change before we patch is always good. As for when the next balance test map is, we're currently gathering feedback including feedback from the community forums, and we hope to start laying out the actual change list for you guys to have an input on sometime next week.
We don't believe tanks suck. Tanks seem to be a lot more effective in TvZ since the last buff, in TvT they were always very core and still are, and in PvT we do currently agree they're not being used much. But our stance on every unit is that not every single unit has to be used in every matchup. For example, Widow Mine especially before the nerf was considered one of the best units for Terran even though it was only really core in one matchup.
With that said, I'd like to add that exploring mech play possibilities in PvT is still important. We've actually been getting feedback from a few different pros on the KR server in this area, and they've been seeing it a lot more on the ladder. We're hoping to see more of it in tournaments to confirm where mech is at right now in PvT.
Late game Swarm Host PvZ is one of the things at the top of our list to look into right now. When are you going to nerf the mothership core vision or at least make a balance testmap to try it out. Have you thought of making tanks not suck. Are you planning on fixing the swarmhost any time soon. + Show Spoiler + We wouldn't do a patch without at least testing the change first even if it's only for a few days. We do try our best to talk to pro players every time we do a test map, and our stance is that getting at least a few pros to test a change before we patch is always good. As for when the next balance test map is, we're currently gathering feedback including feedback from the community forums, and we hope to start laying out the actual change list for you guys to have an input on sometime next week.
We don't believe tanks suck. Tanks seem to be a lot more effective in TvZ since the last buff, in TvT they were always very core and still are, and in PvT we do currently agree they're not being used much. But our stance on every unit is that not every single unit has to be used in every matchup. For example, Widow Mine especially before the nerf was considered one of the best units for Terran even though it was only really core in one matchup.
With that said, I'd like to add that exploring mech play possibilities in PvT is still important. We've actually been getting feedback from a few different pros on the KR server in this area, and they've been seeing it a lot more on the ladder. We're hoping to see more of it in tournaments to confirm where mech is at right now in PvT.
Late game Swarm Host PvZ is one of the things at the top of our list to look into right now.
Are you planning on helping terrans with blink allins? Terrans have to prepare for a possible two base blink allin, which is extremely hard to hold. It's also very hard to scout if the protoss hides it well. This possibility makes it impossible for terran to play greedy (while protoss players can, because of planetary nexus), and when terran prepares, it's still a very hard build to hold. Do you think there is a little problem when 1 race can greed and do some strong early game builds, while the other race can't greed and doesn't have strong early game builds? + Show Spoiler + The patch yesterday we believe should help. In case that's not enough, we will be testing other changes soon in the next balance test map.
He ignores the entire question because this is one of the few questions that was spot on about problems and he has no good answer.Is there any chance of reverting the oracle speed buff and making it an upgrade at the fleet beacon? This would continue to make the oracle viable in the early game while remaining relevant in the late game for revelation, without making it insanely difficult to counter early game. + Show Spoiler +At first, right when we made the change we saw a lot of Oracle play, but that has toned down. We got some "Oracle OP" feedback from pro players up until the end of last year. However, when we put it like this, most seem to understand our stance a bit better:
Harassment options such as the Oracle harrass get weaker over time due to players learning how to defend better against them. Think back to when everyone was convinced that the Medivac speed boost was completely broken and OP. Almost no one says this now. Then look at Oracle usage right when that patch was released, look at how much they're used now, then how much less would it be 2 months from now even without nerfs. Another good example is Banshee cloak change in TvT: almost every TvT when the patch was made utilized it, but that's not the case now.
Also, the buff was Late Game oriented, so putting an upgrade (even 50/50/60) at the Fleet Beacon MAKES it late game. Why does he ignore that question? Oracles Is there any chance of reverting the oracle speed buff and making it an upgrade at the fleet beacon? This would continue to make the oracle viable in the early game while remaining relevant in the late game for revelation, without making it insanely difficult to counter early game. + Show Spoiler +At first, right when we made the change we saw a lot of Oracle play, but that has toned down. We got some "Oracle OP" feedback from pro players up until the end of last year. However, when we put it like this, most seem to understand our stance a bit better:
Harassment options such as the Oracle harrass get weaker over time due to players learning how to defend better against them. Think back to when everyone was convinced that the Medivac speed boost was completely broken and OP. Almost no one says this now. Then look at Oracle usage right when that patch was released, look at how much they're used now, then how much less would it be 2 months from now even without nerfs. Another good example is Banshee cloak change in TvT: almost every TvT when the patch was made utilized it, but that's not the case now.
Why are the developers so resistant towards the idea of changing Warp Gate and Forcefield?
These two specific items have been criticized since the game's beginning as one of the chief reasons Protoss feels more death-bally than the other races, (along with the collosus) and yet there's never been any interest on the developer's part to even have a discussion about them.
Why so resistant? What is so special about Warp Gate and Forcefield that makes them immune in balance talks? + Show Spoiler +
We feel Warp Gates are very race defining for Protoss. It's a completely different way to produce units. Because we want every race to feel unique and asymmetric, we like the design of Warp Gates.
Warp Gates were problematic in the past when 1 base or 2 base all ins were too common. We've addressed this a lot in past years.
We've talked about our stance on Force Fields in the past, and it still remains unchanged. We feel like we get a lot of feedback from forums saying there's no micro anyone can do against Force Fields. However, we just don't see this. For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible? Terran players picking off units on one side of Force Fields and dropping them on the more favorable side is another good example. We believe Force Fields are a very unique ability that sometimes feel there was nothing you could do, but that is okay because there are varying degrees of successes and failures. That is just StarCraft: If DTs come in when I have no detectors I'm dead, but that doesn't mean there was nothing I could have done.
Hey David, Big fan of your work and I'm thankful for all the time you put into this great game!
Question: What are your thoughts on the current state of ZvZ? I notice alot of games tend to be SO close that a single miss click is the difference between winning and losing a game. Is that really considered balance? Units seem so fast I wonder if a all around nerf to unit speed (for all races) would help fix some of these issues. Your thoughts?
+ Show Spoiler + We do agree ZvZ is probably the fastest paced matchup in the game, and it really comes down to every little decision and fast action. We believe this is very unique to the ZvZ matchup and is a good thing. Better players still seem to win out overall, and just the big difference of ZvZ compared to other matchups is cool, the same way TvT is interesting for a completely different set of reasons.
As far as specific strategies and tools go in ZvZ, we do feel like players are favoring mass Roach play a lot more recently. That's why we've been exploring potential Hydralisk buffs. We believe a Hydralisk buff in this matchup could bring the Roach/Hydra mix in quicker to combat only-Roach compositions. The advantage of this: in Roach vs. Roach the defender's advantage is smaller than in Roach vs. Roach/Hydra. Therefore, we could potentially see units that counter these compositions such as Ultralisks or Broodlords a bit more.
We believe each matchup in SC2 is not only about the matchup being fair, but also about each matchup being unique and fun.
Just as a pointer for David, it's quite hypocritical to nerf Hellbats for TvT, refrain from a nerf because of PvP and consider a buff for ZvZ, that's pretty unfair.
Also, Roach Hydra lategame is Broodlord Corruptor, eventually probably Vipers + Spores, seems like fun..? Swarm Hosts Why is Starcraft 2 so much more deathball-y than Brood War? Have you thought about changing SC2 to allow for battles that last longer and let players more easily recover from setbacks? + Show Spoiler + We believe armies as a whole are easier to move around and control because of the better pathing and unlimited unit selection.
As far as deathball goes, we believe having to micro armies and their positioning correctly to win major battles is a good thing. We don't like seeing games where two players both just sit back and mass up to their composition before engaging. This is why we're currently looking into the EU late game PvZ issue.
We feel like we've done a lot in this area in HotS, especially compared to the end of Wings. If you recall towards the end of Wings, especially in PvT, both sides often just defended and macroed up for 1 final battle.
We don't think we're completely there yet and will continue working towards a more action packed game where there's a lot of action leading into army vs. army battles sometimes. The end goal in this area in our opinion is not to get rid of mass army vs. mass army scenarios, but more so to have a lot of action, a lot of harassment opportunities, and have each game feeling different. Do you believe that the swarm host is proving to be used in the way that you wanted it to when you designed the unit for HotS? Do you like the way the swarm host is currently being used by pros? + Show Spoiler + The first question in our minds don't matter as much at this point. At this point of the game, with the game having been out over a year, changing a unit or a strategy to be used exactly how we hoped isn't very relevant. What's more important is how they are currently being used and how good or bad that is for the game.
The answer for the second question is yes in some scenarios and no in others. The easy no is the late game PvZ situation where both players refuse to engage and the game drags on for a long time. We'd really love to come up with an awesome solution to this problem without hurting the good uses of Swarm Hosts. The good use of Swarm Hosts: games that we see where there's constant action due to Swarm Hosts. For example, it's not uncommon to see games where Protoss players perform amazing multi-pronged attacks. Sometimes, they are really successful and just win the game, other times the Zerg player defends so well, and anywhere in between. Games where Swarm Hosts are used and there's constant action everywhere including Swarm Hosts aggressively moving around often after spawning locusts leading into each side's victory are really fun to watch.
We don't generally do unit design changes with patches (only exception here I can think of off the top of my head was when we added the Phoenix range upgrade back in Wings), but for the Swarm Host in the long term, we are also internally discussing if it's a bad thing that locusts keep spawning automatically. The main reason being often times Zerg players just leave Swarm Hosts rally pointed at a location, and it's very common for the observer to go and watch nothing happening because there are no units to attack. But this isn't as big of an issue as the issue mentioned above.
There's all sorts of options: Locust speed -, Life time -, Swarm Host speed +, Hosts can move through locust, Faster burrow/unburrow, Locust Range +/-, Locust DPS +/-, Amount of Locust +, Locust Health -, Spawn speed -, ...
Seriously, almost every variable can be changed to make Hosts a more active unit EASILLY.When are you going to nerf the mothership core vision or at least make a balance testmap to try it out. Have you thought of making tanks not suck. Are you planning on fixing the swarmhost any time soon. + Show Spoiler + We wouldn't do a patch without at least testing the change first even if it's only for a few days. We do try our best to talk to pro players every time we do a test map, and our stance is that getting at least a few pros to test a change before we patch is always good. As for when the next balance test map is, we're currently gathering feedback including feedback from the community forums, and we hope to start laying out the actual change list for you guys to have an input on sometime next week.
We don't believe tanks suck. Tanks seem to be a lot more effective in TvZ since the last buff, in TvT they were always very core and still are, and in PvT we do currently agree they're not being used much. But our stance on every unit is that not every single unit has to be used in every matchup. For example, Widow Mine especially before the nerf was considered one of the best units for Terran even though it was only really core in one matchup.
With that said, I'd like to add that exploring mech play possibilities in PvT is still important. We've actually been getting feedback from a few different pros on the KR server in this area, and they've been seeing it a lot more on the ladder. We're hoping to see more of it in tournaments to confirm where mech is at right now in PvT.
Late game Swarm Host PvZ is one of the things at the top of our list to look into right now. Do you see any problems with Zerg of lacking Anti-Air especially early (for example phoenix harass) and lategame (for example vs. Mass Raven/Battlecruiser) + Show Spoiler +In PvZ, we don't currently think Phoenix openers are problematic. It is a very core opener for Protoss, but doesn't cause major problems. Late game mass Raven/BC turtling play is something we're watching for. If it becomes clear that it's an issue, we'll take steps to address it. ...? It;s not that he doesn't really answer questions - he answers them in a politically correct way so that he can't be held responsible for anything because the answers actually say nothing at all. Next to that, a lot of those answers aren't thought through in any way.
That post you quoted is straight up wrong. E.g.:
The first two questions and there answers
Why is Starcraft 2 so much more deathball-y than Brood War?
We believe armies as a whole are easier to move around and control because of the better pathing and unlimited unit selection.
--> this is a direct answer to the question. Units ball up more because of pathing and no control limits.
Have you thought about changing SC2 to allow for battles that last longer and let players more easily recover from setbacks?
We feel like we've done a lot in this area in HotS, especially compared to the end of Wings...
We don't think we're completely there yet...
--> Again, direct answer. They are not only "thinking about" it, in his opinion they have been doing it and are continuing to do so.
Or the next one. Perdain critizises:
Forcefield and Warpgate make Protoss deathbally. Answer: It's racedefining ?!
But that was not the question. The question in place was "Why so resistant? What is so special about Warp Gate and Forcefield that makes them immune in balance talks?". He was not asked to give his opinion on whether or not they want to change FF and WG, but why they like and not change them. And he answers because WG is racedefining and because they like the micro FF offers.
and this goes on and on. What do you expect? That he answers questions that haven't been asked in an AMA? What should he have said in your opinion? That guy had 1hr time to answer as many questions as possible. If the people had wanted other answers, they should have formulated their questions in another way. You really can't blame a guy for not talking about FF and WG design and what it does and does not imply, when that was not the question in place.
Granted, those limitations were given by blizzard/DK and the questions were probably also chosen by them and others weren't, but I don't see the critics on how he handled the questions.
|
On February 07 2014 00:47 Doomhunter wrote:
"This is a stupid question. With David on this one.
Just as a pointer for David, it's quite hypocritical to nerf Hellbats for TvT, refrain from a nerf because of PvP and consider a buff for ZvZ, that's pretty unfair.
Also, Roach Hydra lategame is Broodlord Corruptor, eventually probably Vipers + Spores, seems like fun..?"
In all fairness to DK here, it was the Terrans who wanted the Hellbat nerf the most for TvT and the matchup was just plain bad when it was constant Hellbat drops.
The Nexus Cannon timer really has no effect on PvZ and PvT and I cant tell you how freaking horrible PvP was in wings and how much better it is now simply because of the nexus cannon - PvP is also the only matchup now where the attacking army literally sits 1 pixel outside nexus cannon range waiting for it to expire while I desperately try and get an immortal and some extra stalkers out to hold an all-in. In PvZ and PvT I cast and they either commit to burning the nexus or retreat - the 10 seconds is meaningless in these matchups but means the world in PvP. You got your MS core nerf and possibly a vision nerf coming so please just be happy with that.
The ZvZ Hydra buff breaks the other matchup's so badly that I don't even know where to begin.
Point remains:
Hellbats went from 18 +12 Light to 18 flat.
IF this was a nerf for TvT only, because TvT was a bad matchup > WHY 18? SCVs have 45 Health, Drones 41 effective health, Probes 40 health. Why should the damage be from 30/attack to 18/attack if the nerf was for the sake of TvT only? It nerfed Hellbats vs workers of all races, while TvT was the problem. The only other Terran unit that might explain said benchmark is the Marine without Shields and with +1 armor- that'd now survive 2 attacks barely.
So, Hellbats were nerfed badly because of TvT, but the nerf affected all three matchups by weakening effectivity against other races workers (there's no reason not to make Hellbats do 18(+3 light) or 18 (+4 light) if the nerf was intended for TvT only, now, Hellbats are weaker to Zealots and in harrasment, thus, it's a nerf. Reason: TvT. Effect: TvT TvP TvZ.
I've played random since WOL Beta BTW, so I know how crucial Photon Overcharge is for PvP. However, doesn't give a reason to refrain from for example Overcharge to 15+5Shields or to reduce range, if it is for the sake of PvP ONLY.
TLDR: I feel that Mirror matchups are often used as a reason to do or not to do certain adjustments to units, while the effects of said adjustment are way broader than only the mirror matchup.
|
On February 07 2014 01:58 Big J wrote:
and this goes on and on. What do you expect? That he answers questions that haven't been asked in an AMA? What should he have said in your opinion? That guy had 1hr time to answer as many questions as possible. If the people had wanted other answers, they should have formulated their questions in another way. You really can't blame a guy for not talking about FF and WG design and what it does and does not imply, when that was not the question in place.
Granted, those limitations were given by blizzard/DK and the questions were probably also chosen by them and others weren't, but I don't see the critics on how he handled the questions.
Ok
|
On February 07 2014 01:19 Roswell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 01:13 Loccstana wrote:
I think the biggest problem here is Blizzard's inability to admit mistakes they made and correct them. Take the hellbat for example: It received 3 back to back nerfs, with the cargo size nerf being rather arbitary and hurting late game harassment. Now that the hellbat's damage been nerfed, the hellbat's cargo size should be reverted back to 2. Also whats with the widow mine being at 2 supply? That unit should be 1/2 supply, 1 supply most. Give the most cost efficent unit in the game a zerglings supply? I think its fair to complain about overpatching things, but so far we havent met a dead end, the games gotten better over time.
Most efficient unit in the game? The mine? Are you serious?
I agree to the Hellbat comment BTW. Hellbats have been nerfed to shreds and are used only as a mineral dump for mech, but nobody seems to care.
|
If you think photon overcharge was made for PvP at all you weren't in the HotS beta when they were specifically designing it around the ability to stop a quick tank push from sieging your Nexus. It was mentioned to help counter the 1-1-1. The Nexus cannon let's protoss be AS GREEDY AS the other races. Terran was able to at times 3 CC on top of a ramp and Protoss couldn't tell if it was 1-1-1, 3 rax stim timing, or 2 medevac pressure. Zerg could always easily expand, but Protoss struggled in WoL to even get their first expansion up. So many failed forge fast expands, sentry expands, etc. Photon Overcharge and the Mothership Core gave protoss the ability to be aggressive early game and expand early game just like the other races. And in all matchups.
|
On February 07 2014 02:47 Eliezar wrote:
If you think photon overcharge was made for PvP at all you weren't in the HotS beta when they were specifically designing it around the ability to stop a quick tank push from sieging your Nexus. It was mentioned to help counter the 1-1-1. The Nexus cannon let's protoss be AS GREEDY AS the other races. Terran was able to at times 3 CC on top of a ramp and Protoss couldn't tell if it was 1-1-1, 3 rax stim timing, or 2 medevac pressure. Zerg could always easily expand, but Protoss struggled in WoL to even get their first expansion up. So many failed forge fast expands, sentry expands, etc. Photon Overcharge and the Mothership Core gave protoss the ability to be aggressive early game and expand early game just like the other races. And in all matchups.
This is good in theory, but the mscore now makes other races especially Terran play in a very predictable safe way while allowing Protoss so be more greedy - the effect has been overcompensated for due to the offensive use of mscore, which in itself already makes other races less greedy and so Protoss does not play AS greedy, but rather more greedy relative to Terran definitively and perhaps Zerg
|
Feels like someone in gold league could have come up with those answers. Some of the questions are focused on design (the first two being the most obvious).
Others are just shit. Like, what do dead capitol ships have to do with balance?
Then there're units like the raven, that they "like". I feel like the raven is one of the most ridiculous units in the game for TvZ and even somewhat in TvT (to a lesser extent, because both players can make them). In TvP they're hit and miss. If your opponent doesn't make stalkers or knows how to micro his air, ravens don't do much besides detection. Back to balance, because this is just another design concern, where a unit feels like it has too much utility in only one non-mirror match-up and sucks major balls in another.
The fact that they have to "look at" certain things still proves that they don't actually know much about balancing their game without their hands being held. Anybody can look at super-late-game Zerg being crushed by Carrier-Void or BC/Viking-Raven and wonder what they could have possibly built with their superior economy that would have mattered and come up blank. It's pretty much obvious that Zerg has to hit some kind of economically abusive timing where they simply have an army that's unbeatable. Blizzard's (almost happened) answer to shitty AA is to lower the gas cost of hydras, or strengthening every early-mid econ advantage hydra timing, while doing nothing for late-game ZvX issues like air with storm support or 20 ravens shooting seekers. I just wonder where their heads are at heading into the next expansion, because it's pretty clear they've fucked up a LOT with this one.
|
On February 07 2014 02:30 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 01:19 Roswell wrote:On February 07 2014 01:13 Loccstana wrote:
I think the biggest problem here is Blizzard's inability to admit mistakes they made and correct them. Take the hellbat for example: It received 3 back to back nerfs, with the cargo size nerf being rather arbitary and hurting late game harassment. Now that the hellbat's damage been nerfed, the hellbat's cargo size should be reverted back to 2. Also whats with the widow mine being at 2 supply? That unit should be 1/2 supply, 1 supply most. Give the most cost efficent unit in the game a zerglings supply? I think its fair to complain about overpatching things, but so far we havent met a dead end, the games gotten better over time. Most efficient unit in the game? The mine? Are you serious? I agree to the Hellbat comment BTW. Hellbats have been nerfed to shreds and are used only as a mineral dump for mech, but nobody seems to care.
Hellbat is on the return in TvZ now, with terrans going marine, thor, hellbat and medivacs. Of course, they do get the bf upgrade, so they do 18+12 to lings/blings
|
On February 07 2014 01:58 Big J wrote:
Granted, those limitations were given by blizzard/DK and the questions were probably also chosen by them and others weren't, but I don't see the critics on how he handled the questions.
I see them. He pretty much answered the way he always answers. Allow me to paraphrase all the answers:
"We're looking into things, but not the things that we fucked up on, because looking at them and fixing them would be admitting that we fucked up and would also negate the time and effort we spent fucking things up. What we will do instead is tweak the numbers on other things that we feel can compensate for our fuck-ups while not considering how they will fuck other things up down the road."
There. I did what took him an hour in 2 minutes.
|
Blizzard is notorious for not admitting their mistakes.
SC2 is not the first game they've taken backlash for.
As wonderful as the game was, WC3 also received a lot of criticism, especially for its balance. Anyone who has played the game intensively will be able to tell you that WC3 was not, in fact, balanced. It wasn't exactly ridiculous either, but there were definitely some factors that made it unbalanced. The Blademaster was one of them, and the rather big impact of RNG in general. Blizzard never went back on any of this though, and never showed the intent to do so.
When they create a game, they typically don't back out on the fundamental design choices they've made. The only recent example I can think of is the removal of the AH in D3. And that's taken what, over a year and it will only be implemented in the expansion, I believe.
No. People need to stop kidding themselves. There will be no major overhaul of SC2, simply because it isn't Blizzard's process. They've shown willingness to start over projects when they feel it isn't going in the right direction (see Titan), but, ironically enough, once the game is made, they display a lot of rigidity and generally refuse to change directions.
I wish Blizzard would learn from the example of Square Enix and FFXIV, who took the failure of their game at heart and listened to its community to scrap it and start over from scratch.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 06 2014 20:19 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2014 18:36 Zealously wrote:On February 06 2014 16:58 lichter wrote:On February 06 2014 16:54 markrevival wrote:
i feel like there needs to be a separate forum here for people who hate StarCraft 2. Zealously would probably continue to read that forum bec he is a masochist Nah I'd just blanket ban everyone If this forum had a purge of assholes, would any of us be safe? Incidentally... Hey, assholes, this past month a key member of the design team has been attempting to engage with the SC2 community. Are we just going to pretty much ignore that? Yes, tribalism is fun. Who doesn't like to "I-just-discovered-potterying it up" by a roaring fire, explaining to each other why "they" are not only wrong but evil? But after the rosy glow of self righteous furvour fades? What did he say again? David Kim isn't the captain of the good ship SC2. Right now it's patch time and the kind of change he can get done is limited. Show nested quote +We don't generally do unit design changes with patches (only exception here I can think of off the top of my head was when we added the Phoenix range upgrade back in Wings), Harassment options always seem overpowered at first. Implying that the balance team don't pay too much attention to initial community feedback on harassment changes. Show nested quote +Harassment options such as the Oracle harass get weaker over time due to players learning how to defend better against them. European PvZ is especially broken for some reason. Show nested quote +We don't like seeing games where two players both just sit back and mass up to their composition before engaging. This is why we're currently looking into the EU late game PvZ issue. David Kim is watching swarm host games he likes (Proleague?) Show nested quote +Games where Swarm Hosts are used and there's constant action everywhere including Swarm Hosts aggressively moving around often after spawning locusts leading into each side's victory are really fun to watch. There's a lot of other stuff, including a good bit about PvT, but just from this... If you're interested in engaging with, rather than insulting, David Kim and the balance team you might solve a problem they are working of that I think most of the community recognise as a problem. He pretty much asks for help at one point. Show nested quote +[In] late game PvZ situation where both players refuse to engage and the game drags on for a long time. We'd really love to come up with an awesome solution to this problem without hurting the good uses of Swarm Hosts. Maybe, just maybe you can apply your gargantuan brain to think of a clever way, within the constraints of a patch, of fixing the problem. It's unfixable you say? Then what the hell are you doing in this thread? Go agitate for deeper changes with LotV or support Starbow or make your own mod. Right now this thread is 50% mixed whining and simple toxicity making it barely readable. When we reach background levels of crazy then come back. We'll have missed you!
Wow, someone with the correct attitude, who knew?
|
Capitol ships are boring or not interesting? DEATHBALLS ARE A GOOD THING? ok...time to leave SC2 :\
|
On February 07 2014 03:53 Moonsalt wrote:
Capitol ships are boring or not interesting? DEATHBALLS ARE A GOOD THING? ok...time to leave SC2 :\
Time to take a reading class.
|
Dear David Kim,
Please have a formal public vodded discussion with all top 30 rated Terrans on balance or please resign for someone else willing to do so.
Tok
|
On February 07 2014 03:47 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2014 20:19 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 06 2014 18:36 Zealously wrote:On February 06 2014 16:58 lichter wrote:On February 06 2014 16:54 markrevival wrote:
i feel like there needs to be a separate forum here for people who hate StarCraft 2. Zealously would probably continue to read that forum bec he is a masochist Nah I'd just blanket ban everyone If this forum had a purge of assholes, would any of us be safe? Incidentally... Hey, assholes, this past month a key member of the design team has been attempting to engage with the SC2 community. Are we just going to pretty much ignore that? Yes, tribalism is fun. Who doesn't like to "I-just-discovered-potterying it up" by a roaring fire, explaining to each other why "they" are not only wrong but evil? But after the rosy glow of self righteous furvour fades? What did he say again? David Kim isn't the captain of the good ship SC2. Right now it's patch time and the kind of change he can get done is limited. We don't generally do unit design changes with patches (only exception here I can think of off the top of my head was when we added the Phoenix range upgrade back in Wings), Harassment options always seem overpowered at first. Implying that the balance team don't pay too much attention to initial community feedback on harassment changes. Harassment options such as the Oracle harass get weaker over time due to players learning how to defend better against them. European PvZ is especially broken for some reason. We don't like seeing games where two players both just sit back and mass up to their composition before engaging. This is why we're currently looking into the EU late game PvZ issue. David Kim is watching swarm host games he likes (Proleague?) Games where Swarm Hosts are used and there's constant action everywhere including Swarm Hosts aggressively moving around often after spawning locusts leading into each side's victory are really fun to watch. There's a lot of other stuff, including a good bit about PvT, but just from this... If you're interested in engaging with, rather than insulting, David Kim and the balance team you might solve a problem they are working of that I think most of the community recognise as a problem. He pretty much asks for help at one point. [In] late game PvZ situation where both players refuse to engage and the game drags on for a long time. We'd really love to come up with an awesome solution to this problem without hurting the good uses of Swarm Hosts. Maybe, just maybe you can apply your gargantuan brain to think of a clever way, within the constraints of a patch, of fixing the problem. It's unfixable you say? Then what the hell are you doing in this thread? Go agitate for deeper changes with LotV or support Starbow or make your own mod. Right now this thread is 50% mixed whining and simple toxicity making it barely readable. When we reach background levels of crazy then come back. We'll have missed you! Wow, someone with the correct attitude, who knew?
I know, that post was a joy to read. I love the myth that being a negative asshole somehow will get people to change. It's like in dota when people yell at their teammates and I wonder "why would yelling at him make him better at the game?"
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On February 07 2014 04:00 tokinho wrote:
Dear David Kim,
Please have a formal public vodded discussion with all top 30 rated Terrans on balance or please resign for someone else willing to do so.
Tok
While I think this would be a great thing, it's never going to happen and it would be impossible to pull off any way. Getting a few Terrans alongside David Kim on some talk show, maybe, but thirty?
|
Being constructive is fine when you know the other party is competent and receptive to suggestions. But what other recourse is there when after years and years of constructive input from every branch of the community has fallen on deaf ears and incompetance displayed at every opportunity?
At this point, what SC2 really needs is a good lynching -- of the Jay Wilson type. The D3 debacle was bad but at least it looks salvageable with the expansion. Is SC2 salvageable after all this time or has the point passed? IMO it's a pity things weren't corrected before when the community was more positive but the lesson learned is that trying to be all constructive and nice is detrimental in some circumstances.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 07 2014 04:03 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:00 tokinho wrote:
Dear David Kim,
Please have a formal public vodded discussion with all top 30 rated Terrans on balance or please resign for someone else willing to do so.
Tok While I think this would be a great thing, it's never going to happen and it would be impossible to pull off any way. Getting a few Terrans alongside David Kim on some talk show, maybe, but thirty?
Get some toss and zerg in there while you're at it.
If you think for a moment there are any players at all who are unbiased, especially at the professional level where their career and life depends on how well they perform, you're out of your mind.
|
On February 07 2014 04:03 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:00 tokinho wrote:
Dear David Kim,
Please have a formal public vodded discussion with all top 30 rated Terrans on balance or please resign for someone else willing to do so.
Tok While I think this would be a great thing, it's never going to happen and it would be impossible to pull off any way. Getting a few Terrans alongside David Kim on some talk show, maybe, but thirty?
I didn't even know there were thirty Terrans left.
I'll get my hat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
