EPTI liked DKs answers. He doesn't want to completely destroy the game just to try to buff one side that is doing poorly. I also like that they are talking about swarm hosts and how they spawn automatically with rally points.
David Kim answers Balance Questions on Battle.net forums -…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I liked DKs answers. He doesn't want to completely destroy the game just to try to buff one side that is doing poorly. I also like that they are talking about swarm hosts and how they spawn automatically with rally points. | ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On February 06 2014 08:39 aZealot wrote: I thought Pardo led the initial design on SC2 and DB stepped in from 2007 (a couple of years into SC2s development, IIRC)? Pardo has an uncanny ability to sense when it's time to jump shit to another product before whatever he is currently on becomes shit. Post TBC WoW, SC2, Diablo 3, he successfully dodged the development on all these. Impressive. Now he's back on WoW and what do you know, they're actually making some pretty good changes in the next expansion. | ||
|
StutteR
United States1903 Posts
| ||
|
Firkraag8
Sweden1006 Posts
On February 06 2014 08:24 murphs wrote: He really is useless. Absolutely no desire to address the fundamental issues. He likes forcefields and warp gate, no bright future for this game. You know there's a ton of people who actually like these things, silent majority for damn sure. | ||
|
Sufinsil
United States760 Posts
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. So is he saying he wants to force Zerg to require more micro with them beyond positioning? Lurkers are great since you just have to position them and they control that area. Swarm Hosts seem to do the same thing, but its more directional control and have a longer range. And requires more than positioning to micro them effectively. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On February 06 2014 08:38 Ammanas wrote: Thank you very much. Quite an interesting read, isn't it? DB didn't answer the 2nd (probably more important) part of Lalush's question (if the 3 base cap is considered an issue or not). I would really love to know an answer to that. The fact that they at least discussed it can suggest that they are maybe at least thinking about it for LotV. It would give me so much hope. He is correctly stating, that such a change would probably require a complete balance overhaul. Do you guys think people would be OK, if there were no new units in LotV multiplayer and only a redesign of economy + rebalance of units already in? I mean, how many units can they add anyway? The game feels like it has too much units already! Yes, it is an interesting read. And, as you say, I understand where they are coming from when choosing not to overhaul the economy for HOTS. They may have even wanted to, but their decisions don't occur in a vacuum. If, for example, there are deadlines to meet for HOTS release then shipping a wrecked multiplayer with no balance does Blizzard no good at all. I share your concern regarding the economy. But, maybe not as much I used to. I no longer think, or am unsure that it is the crippling flaw I originally thought it was. From WOL to HOTS we have seen the growth of 1 base to 3 base play (facilitated by map layouts). While a mature one time army is achievable on a usually comfortably attained 3 base economy, we do see more and more games (especially at the highest level of play) going to 4 and 5 bases so that those armies can be recycled and reconfigured. This also tends to open up opportunities for more harassment and and multiple engagements. I think, often, we confuse our own experience on ladder for the total reality of the game. As to redesign of the economy for LOTV + rebalance and no new units. Hmm, that is a difficult question, dude.  | ||
|
Sufinsil
United States760 Posts
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. From the little Brood War I watched, Carrier builds were rather entertaining and effective. Once a counter was made by Flash, they were not used as much anymore. But at least they were a possbility unlike in SC2. | ||
|
samurai80
Japan4225 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Pirfiktshon
United States1072 Posts
| ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
| ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
On February 06 2014 08:47 aZealot wrote: Yes, it is an interesting read. And, as you say, I understand where they are coming from when choosing not to overhaul the economy for HOTS. They may have even wanted to, but their decisions don't occur in a vacuum. If, for example, there are deadlines to meet for HOTS release then shipping a wrecked multiplayer with no balance does Blizzard no good at all. I share your concern regarding the economy. But, maybe not as much I used to. I no longer think, or am unsure that it is the crippling flaw I originally thought it was. From WOL to HOTS we have seen the growth of 1 base to 3 base play (facilitated by map layouts). While a mature one time army is achievable on a usually comfortably achieved 3 base economy, we do see more and more games (especially at this highest level of play) going to 4 and 5 bases so that those armies can be recycled and reconfigured. This also tends to open up opportunities for more harassment and and multiple engagements. I think, often, we confuse our own experiences on ladder for the total reality of the game. As to redesign of the economy for LOTV + rebalance and no new units. Hmm, that is a difficult question, dude. One big flaw they seem to continue to ignore though, is the problem with armies dying to quickly and deathballing still. Starbow devs realized early that the 40% attack speed nerf would be needed to offset the speed of fastest setting from Blizzard. However, even if that was fixed I'm not sure it would fix Deathballing, its just that some units are way to efficient in a ball or once they reach critical mass. | ||
|
Ammanas
Slovakia2166 Posts
On February 06 2014 08:47 aZealot wrote: Yes, it is an interesting read. And, as you say, I understand where they are coming from when choosing not to overhaul the economy for HOTS. They may have even wanted to, but their decisions don't occur in a vacuum. If, for example, there are deadlines to meet for HOTS release then shipping a wrecked multiplayer with no balance does Blizzard no good at all. I share your concern regarding the economy. But, maybe not as much I used to. I no longer think, or am unsure that it is the crippling flaw I originally thought it was. From WOL to HOTS we have seen the growth of 1 base to 3 base play (facilitated by map layouts). While a mature one time army is achievable on a usually comfortably achieved 3 base economy, we do see more and more games (especially at this highest level of play) going to 4 and 5 bases so that those armies can be recycled and reconfigured. This also tends to open up opportunities for more harassment and and multiple engagements. As to redesign of the economy for LOTV + rebalance and no new units. Hmm, that is a difficult question, dude. Yes, indeed that's what we see in HotS. The important thing you mention - the more bases players take, the more opportunities for harass and multiple engagements we see. What I believe is, that if the economy would be changed in that way, it would kinda 'force' players to expand sooner which would mean those opportunities would come faster. Another thing I firmly believe is that currently if there is a turtling player (avilo style terran mech, most commonly), there is very little opportunity for the opposing player to attack into him, so they just go for turtle mode themselves. Change of economy flow could open more opportunities for them to actually attack and trade (because even unfavourable trades would be good enough if you have more economy while still having same army supply). Last thing I wanna mention (not at all related to economy, just a little tidbit ^^), I personally would MUCH rather see a recall ability on oracle (teleport units towards the oracle, maybe limited by supply ala drops?) instead of the doom deathray we have now. Would be much cooler imo. On February 06 2014 08:52 Plansix wrote: If they re balance the economy, we might be back to square one with everyone stuck on two bases and going two base all ins. Its not like they can just say "And now there are 5 mineral patches and everything is beautiful". People will always gravitate towards ending the game early and will only stop when trying to do so becomes to risky. That is indeed (probably) true. | ||
|
kasumimi
Greece460 Posts
Even though I don't have any expectations anymore, the reality check is always harsh reminder. ...especially the warpgate/ff comments... | ||
|
FrostedMiniWheats
United States30730 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11571 Posts
On February 06 2014 08:36 CutTheEnemy wrote: StarCraft is dead unless Rob Pardo steps in. It's just a mess right now, isn't it? All this balance stuff, it isn't even about balance, is it? It's mostly about design tweaks to make the game more enjoyable. That's the complaint. Its like a fighting game where the characters are roughly equally strong, but none are fun enough, and they're addressing it with balance patches. I think the community needs to be serious about asking Blizzard to put Pardo in charge of the next expansion. For those who read this, consider mentioning Pardo more often in threads. He led the design on broodwar, remember. I don't know Pardo so much. Led design on BW, but I believe it was Patrick Wyatt and Bob Fitch that led the development of Starcraft itself. I haven't heard Pardo talk about BW development so much, but from asking questions of Wyatt and reading his blog, I at least know he is intimately aware of the different emergent behaviours that developed from Starcraft and seems to appreciate the competitive and extra strategic elements they added. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16124 Posts
It would seem and this is why I wish I could ask a follow up question that Blizzard likes Warp Gate and Forcefield enough that they are ok with the Deathball syndrome it gives Protoss. As long as they aren't promoting too many 1-2 base plays, they are ok with the end game result. I wish I could ask if that's actually what he thinks. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On February 06 2014 09:13 Vindicare605 wrote: I asked the question on Warp Gate and Forcefield. In hindsight I should've probably rephrased it a little bit. It would seem and this is why I wish I could ask a follow up question that Blizzard likes Warp Gate and Forcefield enough that they are ok with the Deathball syndrome it gives Protoss. As long as they aren't promoting too many 1-2 base plays, they are ok with the end game result. I wish I could ask if that's actually what he thinks. Had this been announced a bit more in advance, we could have refined questions a bit more... But, as they mentioned that this will happen again, might as well write down a question or two. | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
for once, I respect some of the protoss design choices. Warpgate being a race-specific unit build mechanic actually makes sense, although I still dont think its particularly fair. I really dont like what they have to say about tvp. One race has a seemingly infinite arsenal of early game cheeses, the other race has none. The discussion should stop right there- it is simply not fair. If I understood correctly, the "newest patch should address blink allin tvp concerns". What fucking change are they talking about exactly? | ||
| ||
