David Kim answered 12 posts between 2-3 p.m. PST regarding balance and design concerns. While it was only scheduled for an hour and thus not all questions could be answered, Blizzard staff hints that future events such as this will happen.
In this thread, we're going to do a balance and gameplay Q&A with David Kim from about 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. PST.
David will also be posting in other threads on these forums during that time, but we will be primarily reading and responding to this one.
It's something we'd really like to do a lot more often, so let's see how this goes!
Please: - Only pose questions for David Kim on game balance-related subjects here. - Feel free to discuss and offer further feedback in other threads. - Understand that this is going to be a heavily moderated exercise. We want to answer as many questions about recent developments, the current state of things, and possible future changes as we can, and the best way to do that is to rapidly remove anything that doesn't contribute to that. -Don't be surprised if this thread is locked from time to time. It will only be locked for a minute or less if necessary.
After the answering is all finished, the thread will be open for feedback.
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?
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Protoss Strength in PvT
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Warp Gate/Forcefields
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?
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.
ZvZ
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Zerg Anti-Air
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)
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.
D.Kim just sort of reiterating what we already know is happening with different units and game mechanics and dances around giving any sort of conclusive evidence on how they are experimenting with fixing it or changing things to improve the game.
David Kim, try to make the game more skilled. The protoss macro is just too easy. They can spend their extra gas by wraping HTs and their extra minerals by wraping zealots. The terran player cannot spend his extra gas in late game.
Nobody is going to learn anything new from this. The balance/design team is just going to keep doing what they have been doing, questionable balance changes while avoiding the real problems. This is nothing more than a PR stunt because everyone on the b.net forums has been complaining about how Blizzard doesn't communicate enough with the community.
On February 06 2014 07:40 Stress wrote: Nobody is going to learn anything new from this. The balance/design team is just going to keep doing what they have been doing, questionable balance changes while avoiding the real problems. This is nothing more than a PR stunt because everyone on the b.net forums has been complaining about how Blizzard doesn't communicate enough with the community.
This far the answers has been quite random - Mech on Korean GM vs Protoss? O.o - Capital ships are bad cause it is fun if they get randomly used every now and then WTF? :D
On February 06 2014 07:28 Meerel wrote: prepare for shallow answers
Yeah they are quite evasive.
"Why is Starcraft 2 so much more deathball-y than Brood War?" ----> "we believe having to micro armies and their positioning correctly to win major battles is a good thing"
On February 06 2014 07:44 Glorfindel! wrote: This far the answers has been quite random - Mech on Korean GM vs Protoss? O.o - Capital ships are bad cause it is fun if they get randomly used every now and then WTF? :D
I haven't been watching Korean ladder streams very often, but maybe the mech games in the GSL Challenger league are what's currently in mind.
On February 06 2014 07:28 Meerel wrote: prepare for shallow answers
Yeah they are quite evasive.
"Why is Starcraft 2 so much more deathball-y than Brood War?" ----> "we believe having to micro armies and their positioning correctly to win major battles is a good thing"
...okay?
"We believe armies as a whole are easier to move around and control because of the better pathing and unlimited unit selection."
On February 06 2014 07:44 Glorfindel! wrote: This far the answers has been quite random - Mech on Korean GM vs Protoss? O.o - Capital ships are bad cause it is fun if they get randomly used every now and then WTF? :D
Mech on Korean GM vs Protoss is would be awesome though, I don't see why that's random considering why they're trying to buff mech.
"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."
Regardless of whether or not I would want BCs or Carrier to be redesigned, this has to be the fucking dumbest argument. Confuse SC2 players? Are SC2 players like 8 year olds or some facebook game playing casuals that they can't handle a unit being changed without getting confused and frustrated or what?!
On February 06 2014 07:44 Glorfindel! wrote: This far the answers has been quite random - Mech on Korean GM vs Protoss? O.o - Capital ships are bad cause it is fun if they get randomly used every now and then WTF? :D
Mech on Korean GM vs Protoss is would be awesome though, I don't see why that's random considering why they're trying to buff mech.
I just think it is hilarious how he can say that it is important for Terran players to keep trying to mech. If the whole pro scene has been playing 8 hours per day, for almost a year and hardly a single player actually finds mech to be better than bio in TvP it feels a bit.. Like harassment to be told to keep trying it out. If you have problem in PvT for an example and you keep getting told "It is important that you keep try to Tempest Rush from one base" it is hard to get atleast not a little insulted
The last question he picked (about warp gate and sentries) was just stupid to ask. Feels more like a balance/game design whine, not like a question. I wish Dayvie would just take some questions that actually matter.
On February 06 2014 07:49 Ragoo wrote: "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."
Regardless of whether or not I would want BCs or Carrier to be redesigned, this has to be the fucking dumbest argument. Confuse SC2 players? Are SC2 players like 8 year olds or some facebook game playing casuals that they can't handle a unit being changed without getting confused and frustrated or what?!
Also known as "the casual argument". When you have no sensible reason not to do something, pretend "casuals won't understand". Problem solved.
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.
Pretty much what the lastest two pre-posters said. David Kim is wondering why he receives so much hate out of the community - well, kinda because he's either doing crap (wtf, Hydra 25 gas?), or talking sweet nothings.
On February 06 2014 07:28 Meerel wrote: prepare for shallow answers
Yeah they are quite evasive.
"Why is Starcraft 2 so much more deathball-y than Brood War?" ----> "we believe having to micro armies and their positioning correctly to win major battles is a good thing"
...okay?
"We believe armies as a whole are easier to move around and control because of the better pathing and unlimited unit selection."
stop being stupid.
Question: Why is Starcraft 2 so much more deathball-y than Brood War?
Not how. Then he goes on to talk about the difference between Wings and HoTS, and finishes with "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." - a platitude tenously related to the BW/SC2 comparison...
On February 06 2014 07:58 Squat wrote: That man sure knows how to use a lot words without actually saying anything. He should go into politics.
Because if you actually go into any specifics when talking to the community, you get burned later.
That's what he's paid for. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. If you are a lead designer on a game like SC2, you have to be ready to catch some flak.
At least give us the basic respect of being honest, if your answer is "no we like everything about the game the way it is and will never change forcefields and symmetrical economies and all the other shit people have be berating us about since WoL beta", then fine. At least then we'll know and those who feel that it's a deal breaker can go play Dota or cricket or something instead. I disagree with him on just about every single design decision about the game, but all that is subjective bullshit anyway, there is no right or wrong. Just have enough spine to represent what you actually want for the game.
His stance on Warpgates and Forcefields is good I think, they get a lot of criticism but I wouldn't want them gone, they bring more positive than negative imo.
On February 06 2014 07:58 Squat wrote: That man sure knows how to use a lot words without actually saying anything. He should go into politics.
Because if you actually go into any specifics when talking to the community, you get burned later.
That's what he's paid for. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. If you are a lead designer on a game like SC2, you have to be ready to catch some flak.
At least give us the basic respect of being honest, if your answer is "no we like everything about the game the way it is and will never change forcefields and symmetrical economies and all the other shit people have be berating us about since WoL beta", then fine. At least then we'll know and those who feel that it's a deal breaker can go play Dota or cricket or something instead. I disagree with him on just about every single design decision about the game, but all that is subjective bullshit anyway, there is no right or wrong. Just have enough spine to represent what you actually want for the game.
We don't really know what he's paid for. Maybe hes paid to deliver vague, flowery rhetoric without committing to anything because SC2 has little budget right now and he has to keep the masses at bay.
On February 06 2014 07:58 Squat wrote: That man sure knows how to use a lot words without actually saying anything. He should go into politics.
Because if you actually go into any specifics when talking to the community, you get burned later.
That's what he's paid for. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. If you are a lead designer on a game like SC2, you have to be ready to catch some flak.
At least give us the basic respect of being honest, if your answer is "no we like everything about the game the way it is and will never change forcefields and symmetrical economies and all the other shit people have be berating us about since WoL beta", then fine. At least then we'll know and those who feel that it's a deal breaker can go play Dota or cricket or something instead. I disagree with him on just about every single design decision about the game, but all that is subjective bullshit anyway, there is no right or wrong. Just have enough spine to represent what you actually want for the game.
You mean like this?:
"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."
Maaaan, I was too late to ask him when will they release a broodlord burrow upgrade followed by a broodlord zergling-like move speed while burrowed upgrade.
Two managers randomly met in the smoking room. "Oh, we need to talk about balance in SCII!" - "Okay, lets do it next week"
- So Dustin, how is your silver account? - Idk Kim. I was playing Heroes of Storm last month. Im lead game designer, you know. - Oh..ok. Did you watch MLG? - Sure I did! I watched 1 zvz! seems like no imbalances in ZvZ! - kk thats what im thinking about. Im too bored to watch it too. Ok, i have a meeting now, cya next month!
On February 06 2014 08:12 Ghanburighan wrote: So, regarding TvP:
- He expects the current patch to help against blink all-ins (but he's ready to consider more changes) - Mech is being played against P in Korea (?!?)
Regarding TvZ:
- They are thinking about nerfing ravens. - They think tank is now very good in the MU.
Supernova used mech in his recent Challenger League matches. I think there might have been one other Terran player that used it too, but I don't remember.
On February 06 2014 07:58 Squat wrote: That man sure knows how to use a lot words without actually saying anything. He should go into politics.
Because if you actually go into any specifics when talking to the community, you get burned later.
That's what he's paid for. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. If you are a lead designer on a game like SC2, you have to be ready to catch some flak.
At least give us the basic respect of being honest, if your answer is "no we like everything about the game the way it is and will never change forcefields and symmetrical economies and all the other shit people have be berating us about since WoL beta", then fine. At least then we'll know and those who feel that it's a deal breaker can go play Dota or cricket or something instead. I disagree with him on just about every single design decision about the game, but all that is subjective bullshit anyway, there is no right or wrong. Just have enough spine to represent what you actually want for the game.
You mean like this?:
"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."
I also love the design of warp gates, it is the reason I chose to play protoss. I like what they did in Starbow with them though, introduce a drawback to them and present them as lategame harass mechanic as opposed to primary mechanic of creating units. It just feels more right to me ^^
On February 06 2014 07:58 Squat wrote: That man sure knows how to use a lot words without actually saying anything. He should go into politics.
Because if you actually go into any specifics when talking to the community, you get burned later.
That's what he's paid for. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. If you are a lead designer on a game like SC2, you have to be ready to catch some flak.
At least give us the basic respect of being honest, if your answer is "no we like everything about the game the way it is and will never change forcefields and symmetrical economies and all the other shit people have be berating us about since WoL beta", then fine. At least then we'll know and those who feel that it's a deal breaker can go play Dota or cricket or something instead. I disagree with him on just about every single design decision about the game, but all that is subjective bullshit anyway, there is no right or wrong. Just have enough spine to represent what you actually want for the game.
You mean like this?:
"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."
If every answer had been like that, I would have no issue. But please don't try and tell me there isn't at least as much evasive bullshit as straight answers in this little interview. Just tell me what you intend so I know if I should care about LotV or not. I'd probably disagree with him on pretty much everything, but that's ok.
On February 06 2014 07:58 Squat wrote: That man sure knows how to use a lot words without actually saying anything. He should go into politics.
Because if you actually go into any specifics when talking to the community, you get burned later.
That's what he's paid for. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. If you are a lead designer on a game like SC2, you have to be ready to catch some flak.
At least give us the basic respect of being honest, if your answer is "no we like everything about the game the way it is and will never change forcefields and symmetrical economies and all the other shit people have be berating us about since WoL beta", then fine. At least then we'll know and those who feel that it's a deal breaker can go play Dota or cricket or something instead. I disagree with him on just about every single design decision about the game, but all that is subjective bullshit anyway, there is no right or wrong. Just have enough spine to represent what you actually want for the game.
You mean like this?:
"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."
If every answer had been like that, I would have no issue. But please don't try and tell me there isn't at least as much evasive bullshit as straight answers in this little interview. I'd disagree with him on pretty much everything, but that's ok.
I really don't think he's as evasive as you think. Or at all.
On February 06 2014 08:17 Ammanas wrote: DId he say anything at all about the economy aspect of the game? Or again not a single soul asked him? (I did, but I was late -.-)
I saw the question pop up more than 3+ times. Myself asked that question to (all in time)
EDIT: Maybe its wise to not have any hopes for lotv at all and move on with my life instead
On February 06 2014 07:58 Squat wrote: That man sure knows how to use a lot words without actually saying anything. He should go into politics.
Because if you actually go into any specifics when talking to the community, you get burned later.
That's what he's paid for. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. If you are a lead designer on a game like SC2, you have to be ready to catch some flak.
At least give us the basic respect of being honest, if your answer is "no we like everything about the game the way it is and will never change forcefields and symmetrical economies and all the other shit people have be berating us about since WoL beta", then fine. At least then we'll know and those who feel that it's a deal breaker can go play Dota or cricket or something instead. I disagree with him on just about every single design decision about the game, but all that is subjective bullshit anyway, there is no right or wrong. Just have enough spine to represent what you actually want for the game.
You mean like this?:
"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."
If every answer had been like that, I would have no issue. But please don't try and tell me there isn't at least as much evasive bullshit as straight answers in this little interview. I'd disagree with him on pretty much everything, but that's ok.
I really don't think he's as evasive as you think. Or at all.
What did you want him to say.
Answer the "why" in the deathball question, not the how. Questions about the oracle, raven, swarm host. "we're keeping an eye on things" isn't very reassuring given their track record.
Also, I don't mean this as an insult, but is english David's first language? I've seen this in the past as well, he seems to have trouble understanding what is actually being asked and his answers are often tangentially connected to the question at best. It's like watching two people talking past each other.
On February 06 2014 08:17 Ammanas wrote: DId he say anything at all about the economy aspect of the game? Or again not a single soul asked him? (I did, but I was late -.-)
On February 06 2014 08:17 Ammanas wrote: DId he say anything at all about the economy aspect of the game? Or again not a single soul asked him? (I did, but I was late -.-)
On February 06 2014 07:58 Squat wrote: That man sure knows how to use a lot words without actually saying anything. He should go into politics.
Because if you actually go into any specifics when talking to the community, you get burned later.
That's what he's paid for. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. If you are a lead designer on a game like SC2, you have to be ready to catch some flak.
At least give us the basic respect of being honest, if your answer is "no we like everything about the game the way it is and will never change forcefields and symmetrical economies and all the other shit people have be berating us about since WoL beta", then fine. At least then we'll know and those who feel that it's a deal breaker can go play Dota or cricket or something instead. I disagree with him on just about every single design decision about the game, but all that is subjective bullshit anyway, there is no right or wrong. Just have enough spine to represent what you actually want for the game.
You mean like this?:
"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."
That goes against a lot of the things that have streamlined the races. Also it's straight up ignoratio elenchi again; the question is "why are warp gates not considered for changes?" (not to be removed). The response is "we want all the races to be different so we like that they have different buildings" - and "2-base all ins were too good with them but they're ok now". Really?
The problem I have with his answers is that people are asking about design aspects of the game and he just picks either a niche instance of it and talks about that, or just talks about something sort of related.
On February 06 2014 08:17 Ammanas wrote: DId he say anything at all about the economy aspect of the game? Or again not a single soul asked him? (I did, but I was late -.-)
Thing is, it's not really a balance question.
I think most of them aren't. But I don't think he has any power over design, he just has to change the numbers to make the existing design work. I'm fairly sure they don't have enough people on the project anymore to do anything more than that... if only we had a hat shop...
So forcefield is fine cause you can micro against it before it is cast. Good job ignoring the actual complaint about them.
Also great to know that +25 energy on time warp and buffing ghost are their answer to blink allins. I guess I'll just go 1 base ghost expand...
Also I don't see how, for example, putting waprgate at a later point in the tech tree or making it so that gateways produce faster meaning you have to switch from gateway to warpgate depending on how offensive/defensive you are has anything to do with what he said. But hey each race has to feel unique and apparently BW protoss didn't as they had the same production as T.
On February 06 2014 08:25 Lorch wrote: So forcefield is fine cause you can micro against it before it is cast. Good job ignoring the actual complaint about them.
Also great to know that +25 energy on time warp and buffing ghost are their answer to blink allins. I guess I'll just go 1 base ghost expand...
Well, if you have medivacs, you can also micro against them. I guess the question should have been restricted to the ZvP MU where things like WP sentry drop ramp blocks are still a thing. And you don't have the tools to micro against them after they are cast for a longer period of time.
On February 06 2014 07:58 Squat wrote: That man sure knows how to use a lot words without actually saying anything. He should go into politics.
Because if you actually go into any specifics when talking to the community, you get burned later.
That's what he's paid for. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. If you are a lead designer on a game like SC2, you have to be ready to catch some flak.
At least give us the basic respect of being honest, if your answer is "no we like everything about the game the way it is and will never change forcefields and symmetrical economies and all the other shit people have be berating us about since WoL beta", then fine. At least then we'll know and those who feel that it's a deal breaker can go play Dota or cricket or something instead. I disagree with him on just about every single design decision about the game, but all that is subjective bullshit anyway, there is no right or wrong. Just have enough spine to represent what you actually want for the game.
You mean like this?:
"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."
If every answer had been like that, I would have no issue. But please don't try and tell me there isn't at least as much evasive bullshit as straight answers in this little interview. I'd disagree with him on pretty much everything, but that's ok.
I really don't think he's as evasive as you think. Or at all.
What did you want him to say.
Answer the "why" in the deathball question, not the how. Questions about the oracle, raven, swarm host. "we're keeping an eye on things" isn't very reassuring given their track record.
Not a fan of David Kim at all, but here he does answer the questions pretty well. "Do you like the way the swarmhost is used' is answered with his vision on what is good and 'bad' swarmhost usage.
Unfortunately he states he likes most of the things so we can't expect big changes.
On February 06 2014 08:17 Ammanas wrote: DId he say anything at all about the economy aspect of the game? Or again not a single soul asked him? (I did, but I was late -.-)
A couple of people did mention the economy. It was not addressed, possibly because it did not have anything to do with the set guidelines for the AMA (although DK did answer a question on deathballs; oh yeah, and FF and WG ).
However, DB, did (sort of) address it a while ago prior to HOTS release when LaLush raised it:
LaLush: Sometime between October 2007 and October 2008, you decided to introduce better worker AI, shorten the time workers spent at minerals and decrease the yield to 5 minerals per trip. What happened during this time period that prompted you to change workers? What was your reasoning behind the changes? What are your thoughts on the cap on economic growth in your game? Do you guys at Blizzard at all view your artificial 3 base economic cap as an issue, or is it rather considered a non-issue?
Dustin Browder: One of our goals with workers (especially when it comes to the gas changes with 2 geysers) was to make your economy a little bit more expensive and complicated to manage since (at the time) we had a lot of concerns both on the team and in the community that base building was going to be too simple in SC2.
We discussed this some (but I like your insights here) during the beta for Swarm and felt like it was a pretty huge change at this point to alter core economy. We would have had to rebalance the entire game and at that time we were dealing with Oracle, Widowmine, etc. and those changes were absolutely kicking our butts.
I've PMed you the link to the full AMA in case you find it interesting.
I just can't believe this guy came from a BW player background... All these fundamental design flaws he either won't admit to, or are just too entrenched in the current game for any hope of them being altered is really depressing.
On February 06 2014 07:58 Squat wrote: That man sure knows how to use a lot words without actually saying anything. He should go into politics.
Because if you actually go into any specifics when talking to the community, you get burned later.
That's what he's paid for. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. If you are a lead designer on a game like SC2, you have to be ready to catch some flak.
At least give us the basic respect of being honest, if your answer is "no we like everything about the game the way it is and will never change forcefields and symmetrical economies and all the other shit people have be berating us about since WoL beta", then fine. At least then we'll know and those who feel that it's a deal breaker can go play Dota or cricket or something instead. I disagree with him on just about every single design decision about the game, but all that is subjective bullshit anyway, there is no right or wrong. Just have enough spine to represent what you actually want for the game.
You mean like this?:
"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."
If every answer had been like that, I would have no issue. But please don't try and tell me there isn't at least as much evasive bullshit as straight answers in this little interview. I'd disagree with him on pretty much everything, but that's ok.
I really don't think he's as evasive as you think. Or at all.
What did you want him to say.
Answer the "why" in the deathball question, not the how. Questions about the oracle, raven, swarm host. "we're keeping an eye on things" isn't very reassuring given their track record.
Not a fan of David Kim at all, but here he does answer the questions pretty well. "Do you like the way the swarmhost is used' is answered with his vision on what is good and 'bad' swarmhost usage.
Unfortunately he states he likes most of the things so we can't expect big changes.
I find his answers incoherent and often disconnected from the question. It's difficult to discern what he actually thinks because his way of communicating is so confusing and opaque.
I think all the answers are really good, nice Q&A! I hope they realize zerg anti air in the lategame is indeed a problem, that's why people have to play SH/spore too.
On February 06 2014 08:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:20 Squat wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:16 Pandain wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:15 Squat wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:12 Firkraag8 wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:08 Squat wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:03 ElMeanYo wrote:
On February 06 2014 07:58 Squat wrote: That man sure knows how to use a lot words without actually saying anything. He should go into politics.
Because if you actually go into any specifics when talking to the community, you get burned later.
That's what he's paid for. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. If you are a lead designer on a game like SC2, you have to be ready to catch some flak.
At least give us the basic respect of being honest, if your answer is "no we like everything about the game the way it is and will never change forcefields and symmetrical economies and all the other shit people have be berating us about since WoL beta", then fine. At least then we'll know and those who feel that it's a deal breaker can go play Dota or cricket or something instead. I disagree with him on just about every single design decision about the game, but all that is subjective bullshit anyway, there is no right or wrong. Just have enough spine to represent what you actually want for the game.
You mean like this?:
"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."
If every answer had been like that, I would have no issue. But please don't try and tell me there isn't at least as much evasive bullshit as straight answers in this little interview. I'd disagree with him on pretty much everything, but that's ok.
I really don't think he's as evasive as you think. Or at all.
What did you want him to say.
Answer the "why" in the deathball question, not the how. Questions about the oracle, raven, swarm host. "we're keeping an eye on things" isn't very reassuring given their track record.
Not a fan of David Kim at all, but here he does answer the questions pretty well. "Do you like the way the swarmhost is used' is answered with his vision on what is good and 'bad' swarmhost usage.
Unfortunately he states he likes most of the things so we can't expect big changes.
I find his answers incoherent and often disconnected from the question. It's difficult to discern what he actually thinks because his way of communicating is so confusing and opaque.
Although I really disliked some of the answers he gave, such as the arbitrary commitment never to make design changes after beta (even if theyre needed?), at least his answers were pretty straightforward. I think the game would be much better with warpgates as tier2 or tier3 but I appreciate the fact that its not my game, its blizzards game. If they love warpgates and forcefields so much, then I cant do much about that and as long as they give a straight answer it will have to do.
So basically, a lot of people dont like some of blizzards choices with the game. But hey its their game, I dont have to play it if I dont like it.
Thanks for doing this, I hope you do it again in the future.
He kinda contradicted himself in the 1st answer. He said they wanted more action but doesn't want to get rid of the mass army vs army. Since SC2 has a very unforgiving game design, where a very small mistake can cost you the game, most players opt for massing army and being safe in their base rather than risk.
Also, still sad people still doesn't get and still QQ about Forcefield , Warpgate, Collosus. /sigh
I love how in PvZ the first 15 mins P has like 20 all ins and zerg has none these days. Can we just have a queen spell that gives a spine 1500 HP and extra range so we can just make the games 20 mins no rush david kim? Should sound like music in your ears... I don't see a bright future for this game
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.
Meh, he never even answered "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?". Not that I was expecting much. To be honest, his responses were better than I thought they would be, even if they were not really satisfactory.
On February 06 2014 08:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:20 Squat wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:16 Pandain wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:15 Squat wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:12 Firkraag8 wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:08 Squat wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:03 ElMeanYo wrote:
On February 06 2014 07:58 Squat wrote: That man sure knows how to use a lot words without actually saying anything. He should go into politics.
Because if you actually go into any specifics when talking to the community, you get burned later.
That's what he's paid for. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. If you are a lead designer on a game like SC2, you have to be ready to catch some flak.
At least give us the basic respect of being honest, if your answer is "no we like everything about the game the way it is and will never change forcefields and symmetrical economies and all the other shit people have be berating us about since WoL beta", then fine. At least then we'll know and those who feel that it's a deal breaker can go play Dota or cricket or something instead. I disagree with him on just about every single design decision about the game, but all that is subjective bullshit anyway, there is no right or wrong. Just have enough spine to represent what you actually want for the game.
You mean like this?:
"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."
If every answer had been like that, I would have no issue. But please don't try and tell me there isn't at least as much evasive bullshit as straight answers in this little interview. I'd disagree with him on pretty much everything, but that's ok.
I really don't think he's as evasive as you think. Or at all.
What did you want him to say.
Answer the "why" in the deathball question, not the how. Questions about the oracle, raven, swarm host. "we're keeping an eye on things" isn't very reassuring given their track record.
Not a fan of David Kim at all, but here he does answer the questions pretty well. "Do you like the way the swarmhost is used' is answered with his vision on what is good and 'bad' swarmhost usage.
Unfortunately he states he likes most of the things so we can't expect big changes.
I find his answers incoherent and often disconnected from the question. It's difficult to discern what he actually thinks because his way of communicating is so confusing and opaque.
That Blizzard PR coming through.
If it is intentional he is the most brilliant dissembler I have ever seen. I have never seen anyone who can speak or write so many perfectly grammatical english sentences yet make no sense.
On February 06 2014 08:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:20 Squat wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:16 Pandain wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:15 Squat wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:12 Firkraag8 wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:08 Squat wrote:
On February 06 2014 08:03 ElMeanYo wrote:
On February 06 2014 07:58 Squat wrote: That man sure knows how to use a lot words without actually saying anything. He should go into politics.
Because if you actually go into any specifics when talking to the community, you get burned later.
That's what he's paid for. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. If you are a lead designer on a game like SC2, you have to be ready to catch some flak.
At least give us the basic respect of being honest, if your answer is "no we like everything about the game the way it is and will never change forcefields and symmetrical economies and all the other shit people have be berating us about since WoL beta", then fine. At least then we'll know and those who feel that it's a deal breaker can go play Dota or cricket or something instead. I disagree with him on just about every single design decision about the game, but all that is subjective bullshit anyway, there is no right or wrong. Just have enough spine to represent what you actually want for the game.
You mean like this?:
"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."
If every answer had been like that, I would have no issue. But please don't try and tell me there isn't at least as much evasive bullshit as straight answers in this little interview. I'd disagree with him on pretty much everything, but that's ok.
I really don't think he's as evasive as you think. Or at all.
What did you want him to say.
Answer the "why" in the deathball question, not the how. Questions about the oracle, raven, swarm host. "we're keeping an eye on things" isn't very reassuring given their track record.
Not a fan of David Kim at all, but here he does answer the questions pretty well. "Do you like the way the swarmhost is used' is answered with his vision on what is good and 'bad' swarmhost usage.
Unfortunately he states he likes most of the things so we can't expect big changes.
I find his answers incoherent and often disconnected from the question. It's difficult to discern what he actually thinks because his way of communicating is so confusing and opaque.
A famous humorist of my country once said [rough translation] "Technocrats, they're guys who, when they're done answering your question, you no longer understand what you asked".
On February 06 2014 08:17 Ammanas wrote: DId he say anything at all about the economy aspect of the game? Or again not a single soul asked him? (I did, but I was late -.-)
A couple of people did mention the economy. It was not addressed, possibly because it did not have anything to do with the set guidelines for the AMA (although DK did answer a question on deathballs).
However, DB, did (sort of) address it a while ago prior to HOTS release when LaLush raised it:
LaLush: Sometime between October 2007 and October 2008, you decided to introduce better worker AI, shorten the time workers spent at minerals and decrease the yield to 5 minerals per trip. What happened during this time period that prompted you to change workers? What was your reasoning behind the changes? What are your thoughts on the cap on economic growth in your game? Do you guys at Blizzard at all view your artificial 3 base economic cap as an issue, or is it rather considered a non-issue?
Dustin Browder: One of our goals with workers (especially when it comes to the gas changes with 2 geysers) was to make your economy a little bit more expensive and complicated to manage since (at the time) we had a lot of concerns both on the team and in the community that base building was going to be too simple in SC2.
We discussed this some (but I like your insights here) during the beta for Swarm and felt like it was a pretty huge change at this point to alter core economy. We would have had to rebalance the entire game and at that time we were dealing with Oracle, Widowmine, etc. and those changes were absolutely kicking our butts.
I've PMed you the link to the full AMA in case you find it interesting.
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!
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 thought Pardo led the initial design on SC2 and DB stepped in from 2007 (a couple of years into SC2s development, IIRC)?
Every time I read one of DK's answer, all I see is utter denial.
His answers mostly consist of admitting a potential problem, as in: "we acknowledge that players think that, but we disagree and we don't see a problem ourselves". Based on his answers, it just seems to me that Blizzard has absolutely no intention of making any major changes. They don't see the problems that a solid portion of the community does, so there is nothing else to see or talk about.
Over the past few months, the complaints about the 30 seconds fight and the death balls have been very consistent, but somehow Blizzard is blind to it. In the end, they make their game however they want, and it seems they don't really listen to anyone who is an outsider to Blizzard.
If the next Q&A sessions are like this, we can be sure that LotV won't bring any meaningful changes to the game.
They are adding new units in LotV. They are not going to release an expansion with a bunch of tweeks to current units and limited new content. The video game press would eat them alive.
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.
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 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.
Everyone is looking at Starbow saying I wish SC2 was like that, but OneGoal has more realistic changes to SC2. Starbow is like BW 1.5 and Blizz will never make SC2 like that, while OneGoal looks like a better SC2.
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.
On February 06 2014 08:17 Ammanas wrote: DId he say anything at all about the economy aspect of the game? Or again not a single soul asked him? (I did, but I was late -.-)
A couple of people did mention the economy. It was not addressed, possibly because it did not have anything to do with the set guidelines for the AMA (although DK did answer a question on deathballs).
However, DB, did (sort of) address it a while ago prior to HOTS release when LaLush raised it:
LaLush: Sometime between October 2007 and October 2008, you decided to introduce better worker AI, shorten the time workers spent at minerals and decrease the yield to 5 minerals per trip. What happened during this time period that prompted you to change workers? What was your reasoning behind the changes? What are your thoughts on the cap on economic growth in your game? Do you guys at Blizzard at all view your artificial 3 base economic cap as an issue, or is it rather considered a non-issue?
Dustin Browder: One of our goals with workers (especially when it comes to the gas changes with 2 geysers) was to make your economy a little bit more expensive and complicated to manage since (at the time) we had a lot of concerns both on the team and in the community that base building was going to be too simple in SC2.
We discussed this some (but I like your insights here) during the beta for Swarm and felt like it was a pretty huge change at this point to alter core economy. We would have had to rebalance the entire game and at that time we were dealing with Oracle, Widowmine, etc. and those changes were absolutely kicking our butts.
I've PMed you the link to the full AMA in case you find it interesting.
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.
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.
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.
I can Live with Forcefields its Timewarp that is kind of a back breaker. Reason being is that it is a HUGE overlap of Forcefield mechanics. Its an Ability that can be casted from a decent range from a Flying unit that is 100/100. Even with the energy nerf I don't think this ability is in the best interest of hte game. It makes any and ALL defense / Offense builds 10x stronger for a unit that also has the capability to supercharge a Nexus to be a Super Cannon which is also a Mechanic overlap of photon cannons. Personally I would have liked to ask him why is there sooooooo much overlap in ALL of the Protoss design of units to the point then when you combine them together it gives protoss MASSIVE advantages that I predicted that would come into the play of MASSIVE imbalance that we are just starting to see the tip of the iceberg now LOL past 2 Major tourneys were PVP finals and Mostly populated with P players in the RO16 in both tourneys lol
On February 06 2014 08:17 Ammanas wrote: DId he say anything at all about the economy aspect of the game? Or again not a single soul asked him? (I did, but I was late -.-)
A couple of people did mention the economy. It was not addressed, possibly because it did not have anything to do with the set guidelines for the AMA (although DK did answer a question on deathballs).
However, DB, did (sort of) address it a while ago prior to HOTS release when LaLush raised it:
LaLush: Sometime between October 2007 and October 2008, you decided to introduce better worker AI, shorten the time workers spent at minerals and decrease the yield to 5 minerals per trip. What happened during this time period that prompted you to change workers? What was your reasoning behind the changes? What are your thoughts on the cap on economic growth in your game? Do you guys at Blizzard at all view your artificial 3 base economic cap as an issue, or is it rather considered a non-issue?
Dustin Browder: One of our goals with workers (especially when it comes to the gas changes with 2 geysers) was to make your economy a little bit more expensive and complicated to manage since (at the time) we had a lot of concerns both on the team and in the community that base building was going to be too simple in SC2.
We discussed this some (but I like your insights here) during the beta for Swarm and felt like it was a pretty huge change at this point to alter core economy. We would have had to rebalance the entire game and at that time we were dealing with Oracle, Widowmine, etc. and those changes were absolutely kicking our butts.
I've PMed you the link to the full AMA in case you find it interesting.
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 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.
On February 06 2014 08:17 Ammanas wrote: DId he say anything at all about the economy aspect of the game? Or again not a single soul asked him? (I did, but I was late -.-)
A couple of people did mention the economy. It was not addressed, possibly because it did not have anything to do with the set guidelines for the AMA (although DK did answer a question on deathballs).
However, DB, did (sort of) address it a while ago prior to HOTS release when LaLush raised it:
LaLush: Sometime between October 2007 and October 2008, you decided to introduce better worker AI, shorten the time workers spent at minerals and decrease the yield to 5 minerals per trip. What happened during this time period that prompted you to change workers? What was your reasoning behind the changes? What are your thoughts on the cap on economic growth in your game? Do you guys at Blizzard at all view your artificial 3 base economic cap as an issue, or is it rather considered a non-issue?
Dustin Browder: One of our goals with workers (especially when it comes to the gas changes with 2 geysers) was to make your economy a little bit more expensive and complicated to manage since (at the time) we had a lot of concerns both on the team and in the community that base building was going to be too simple in SC2.
We discussed this some (but I like your insights here) during the beta for Swarm and felt like it was a pretty huge change at this point to alter core economy. We would have had to rebalance the entire game and at that time we were dealing with Oracle, Widowmine, etc. and those changes were absolutely kicking our butts.
I've PMed you the link to the full AMA in case you find it interesting.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I dont know how I feel about any of these answers.
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?
On February 06 2014 09:15 Aveng3r wrote: I dont know how I feel about any of these answers.
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?
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.
I don't think that inconvenience is a good argument against positive change. Of course a change as drastic as altering the economy would bring a period of instability. Brood war was a huge change compared to vanilla SC, yet it was for the better.
WoL was completely broken on release, yet it was a necessary iterative process. Complacency and settling for mediocrity is not something I consider appropriate for the sequel to the greatest RTS ever made. If hard changes have to be made, make them. If jimmies have to be rustled, rustle them.
Well normally its good if the developers/balancing team answer community questions but the answer so far basicly show everything. Hes using many words to say as little as possible. There wont be any usefull answeres, only "we keep an eye on that" or "maybe we will address this". Completly useless. Not that i blame him, because what else is he supposed to say?
Oh but i had a good laugh about how he thinks the last patch fixes blink all-ins, thank god my ghosts come with full energy now to stop this.
If warpgate and force fields are staying, the least they can do is axe the colossus and replace it with a more dynamic unit with LOTV. Protoss needs a higher skill floor and a higher skill ceiling, and if gateway units can't be altered too much then it should be the robo units that break the deathball.
Immortal isn't much better, another unmicroable unit that counters certain things way too strong. Heavy redesigns to robo tech and factory tech is what LOTV should focus on with protoss and terran.
On February 06 2014 07:58 Squat wrote: That man sure knows how to use a lot words without actually saying anything. He should go into politics.
Because if you actually go into any specifics when talking to the community, you get burned later.
That's what he's paid for. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. If you are a lead designer on a game like SC2, you have to be ready to catch some flak.
At least give us the basic respect of being honest, if your answer is "no we like everything about the game the way it is and will never change forcefields and symmetrical economies and all the other shit people have be berating us about since WoL beta", then fine. At least then we'll know and those who feel that it's a deal breaker can go play Dota or cricket or something instead. I disagree with him on just about every single design decision about the game, but all that is subjective bullshit anyway, there is no right or wrong. Just have enough spine to represent what you actually want for the game.
You mean like this?:
"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."
If every answer had been like that, I would have no issue. But please don't try and tell me there isn't at least as much evasive bullshit as straight answers in this little interview. I'd disagree with him on pretty much everything, but that's ok.
I really don't think he's as evasive as you think. Or at all.
What did you want him to say.
Answer the "why" in the deathball question, not the how. Questions about the oracle, raven, swarm host. "we're keeping an eye on things" isn't very reassuring given their track record.
Also, I don't mean this as an insult, but is english David's first language? I've seen this in the past as well, he seems to have trouble understanding what is actually being asked and his answers are often tangentially connected to the question at best. It's like watching two people talking past each other.
I think he says that deathballs aren't that major to fix as long as constant action occurs throughout the game.
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.
Hiring patrick would be a step in the right direction but he signed with a another company last month. He's designed a string of amazing games.
On topic: I don't play sc2 hots at all cause my initial impressions just didn't make it seem like it was fun at all. I was presented with overlapping unit roles along with WoL style gameplay. That didn't and still doesn't appeal to me on any level. They do a good job with balance though I'll give them that but when core mechanics suck it doesn't make up for balance. If it were up to me I rather have an unbalanced game that is fun to play.
Keep up the good work DK, your ability to see through the whiners and nubs posts impresses me.
It funny how races that had it 'good' all of sudden cry hard when their race is brought back into check. DK doesnt fall for this crying, he keeps to his system, this is impressive in my book.
david kim seems being sad about this warpgate and ff whines and i can understand, they such a fundermental thing of sc2, its not bw 2.0 xD at .least 60% of the questions are bs qq whine with nearly no reason to even ask because the question itself is stupid²
but hey BNET FORUM right ? xD
On February 06 2014 09:20 Bagi wrote: If warpgate and force fields are staying, the least they can do is axe the colossus and replace it with a more dynamic unit with LOTV. Protoss needs a higher skill floor and a higher skill ceiling, and if gateway units can't be altered too much then it should be the robo units that break the deathball.
Immortal isn't much better, another unmicroable unit that counters certain things way too strong. Heavy redesigns to robo tech and factory tech is what LOTV should focus on with protoss and terran.
no man, colossi are cool, where on earth you guys play ? where you still have problems with deathballs wtf guys unmicroable immortel ???
wtf why i am even anger myself reading comments ...
Man, I always get excited every time I see something like this, only to have my hopes and dreams crushed. David Kim even goes as far to say "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." as if it affects blink allins in the slightest... I have news for you David, the game will be dead before LoTV if you keep it up like this, I sure as hell won't be playing then.
EndRant, back to a more balanced, overall better version of sc2, Starbow.
"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."
What's to watch? People have been doing Skytoss and Skyterran for months now.
Also early game anti air isn't really the issue with Skytoss or Skyterran. It's the LATE GAME anti-air everyone is worried about. The whole "if he gets that composition you lost the game" thing is really dumb to me. I'm not saying my 200/200 army should beat their 200/200 army, but it sure as hell shouldn't completely melt my maxed AA army 3 or 4 times over without putting a dent in his.
Out of all the questions he answered, this was by far the worst answer.
On February 06 2014 09:31 sagefreke wrote: "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."
What's to watch? People have been doing Skytoss and Skyterran for months now.
Also early game anti air isn't really the issue with Skytoss or Skyterran. It's the LATE GAME anti-air everyone is worried about. Toss might not be able to turtle as hard as Terran does when going air, but the whole "if he gets that composition you lost the game" thing is really dumb to me. I'm not saying my 200/200 army should beat their 200/200 army, but it sure as hell shouldn't completely melt my maxed AA army 3 or 4 times over.
Out of all the questions he answered, this was by far the worst answer.
in 99,9% oif the games the terran has this endgame army, the enemy did so much huge major mistakes before, that the only reason they still ARE in the game is because the terran WANTED to go raven, and othrwise could have killed him 100 times, telling me that you can build a raven lategame army np without the enemy just overrun you must be best joke of year ...
On February 06 2014 09:27 Drake wrote: david kim seems being sad about this warpgate and ff whines and i can understand, they such a fundermental thing of sc2, its not bw 2.0 xD
No one is asking to remove them, simply to change them so they aren't so damn prevalent to the point of detrimental reliance.
Because of Warp Gate and Forcefield, Gateway units are weaker than the low tech units of the other races, because of that weakness Protoss relies heavily on a single massive army much more so than the other races do.
This isn't an opinion, this is a fact.
If Warp Gate and Forcefield were scaled back, made less important, Gateway units could be buffed and the entirety of the race could be made more dynamic.
It's a widely held opinion that Protoss isn't an exciting race to watch, and definitely not fun to play against. That is why TvZ is held so high above any of the Protoss matches as the most exciting match up.
Just because it's different, just because it's unique doesn't mean it's a good thing to have.
On February 06 2014 09:31 sagefreke wrote: "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."
What's to watch? People have been doing Skytoss and Skyterran for months now.
Also early game anti air isn't really the issue with Skytoss or Skyterran. It's the LATE GAME anti-air everyone is worried about. Toss might not be able to turtle as hard as Terran does when going air, but the whole "if he gets that composition you lost the game" thing is really dumb to me. I'm not saying my 200/200 army should beat their 200/200 army, but it sure as hell shouldn't completely melt my maxed AA army 3 or 4 times over.
Out of all the questions he answered, this was by far the worst answer.
in 99,9% oif the games the terran has this endgame army, the enemy did so much huge major mistakes before, that the only reason they still ARE in the game is because the terran WANTED to go raven, and othrwise could have killed him 100 times, telling me that you can build a raven lategame army np without the enemy just overrun you must be best joke of year ...
Define major mistakes?
The games I've played and observed, Terran will open mech and transition into skyterran late game. You make it seem like Zerg just lets Terran start going air from the get go. It's not very easy to harass against turtle mech style.
Fuck this, warpgate 'makes Protoss feel unique' as if Protoss didn't feel unique in Brood War. It's a copout answer, and tells me the mechanic will NEVER be looked at.
But it's like a different thing! That means it's good...right? I mean, if we give Ultralisks a Haduken punch that launches enemy units into the air as a form of AA that would be really fucking unique too! This certainly would make the game better, it would make zerg really stand out.
On February 06 2014 08:43 Firkraag8 wrote:silent majority for damn sure.
Oh ye? If that is the case I think most people will change their minds when these disastrous mechanics and their implications are properly explained to them. Not a week has gone by since 2010 where a thread hasn't been made about this shit.
On February 06 2014 09:40 Wombat_NI wrote: Fuck this, warpgate 'makes Protoss feel unique' as if Protoss didn't feel unique in Brood War. It's a copout answer, and tells me the mechanic will NEVER be looked at.
the problem with warpgates for me isnt so much warpgates themselves, I think its a cool feature, its the fact that having them as pretty much immediate access limits the game in so many ways.
a) removes defenders advantage = gateway units have to be somewhat weak b) thus protoss cant defend against zerg without either 1) ball of units or 2) forcefields = must have ramps to natural with small chokes and in general limits map making significantly.
Always the same questions that almost 100% of the community and players agree on.
Always the same answers from David Kim and developers.
Forefields? "Nothing wrong" Warpgate? "Fine" Deathball? "We like it" Decisive 200/200 battles? "It's your imagination"
Year after year after year . . . I don't understand why people even attempt to ask questions anymore. These guys (developers) are going to do what they're going to do regardless of feedback. It could be the President of a country telling them there's something wrong and the answer would be: "nothing to see here Mr. President . . . you're clearly delusional if you think this game could use a change".
On February 06 2014 09:58 SCST wrote: Always the same questions that almost 100% of the community and players agree on.
Always the same answers from David Kim and developers.
Forefields? "Nothing wrong" Warpgate? "Fine" Deathball? "We like it" Decisive 200/200 battles? "It's your imagination"
Year after year after year . . . I don't understand why people even attempt to ask questions anymore. These guys (developers) are going to do what they're going to do regardless of feedback. It could be the President of a country telling them there's something wrong and the answer would be: "nothing to see here Mr. President . . . you're delusional if you think this game use a change".
Lets not exaggerate what the entire community feels or wants. Just because the loudest members of the community think that forcefields and warpgate are unsolvable problems doesn't mean the rest of us do. I personally couldn't care less about this whole redesign protoss thing.
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.
Hiring patrick would be a step in the right direction but he signed with a another company last month. He's designed a string of amazing games.
Well thing is I don't even know that he would be interested in designing RTS games as he hasn't seemed to do anything of the sort for over a decade. I was just expressing caution in the idea that Pardo would be the magic bullet.
On February 06 2014 09:15 Aveng3r wrote: I dont know how I feel about any of these answers.
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?
I cried a bit when I read that they don't want to change how units work to improve gameplay. I mean, if balance is your main concern, and not making the game as much fun as possible while still being fair, we might aswell remove protoss and zerg and call it balanced.
Thanks for the list! Even if you did paste the same questions twice or three times lol. Made me think there were more questions than there actually were
On February 06 2014 08:17 Ammanas wrote: DId he say anything at all about the economy aspect of the game? Or again not a single soul asked him? (I did, but I was late -.-)
A couple of people did mention the economy. It was not addressed, possibly because it did not have anything to do with the set guidelines for the AMA (although DK did answer a question on deathballs).
However, DB, did (sort of) address it a while ago prior to HOTS release when LaLush raised it:
LaLush: Sometime between October 2007 and October 2008, you decided to introduce better worker AI, shorten the time workers spent at minerals and decrease the yield to 5 minerals per trip. What happened during this time period that prompted you to change workers? What was your reasoning behind the changes? What are your thoughts on the cap on economic growth in your game? Do you guys at Blizzard at all view your artificial 3 base economic cap as an issue, or is it rather considered a non-issue?
Dustin Browder: One of our goals with workers (especially when it comes to the gas changes with 2 geysers) was to make your economy a little bit more expensive and complicated to manage since (at the time) we had a lot of concerns both on the team and in the community that base building was going to be too simple in SC2.
We discussed this some (but I like your insights here) during the beta for Swarm and felt like it was a pretty huge change at this point to alter core economy. We would have had to rebalance the entire game and at that time we were dealing with Oracle, Widowmine, etc. and those changes were absolutely kicking our butts.
I've PMed you the link to the full AMA in case you find it interesting.
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 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.
Hmm, thanks. I did not realise that. If DK does another AMA, I shall ask if they have considered or will consider testing an across the board reduction in the attack speed. I don't know if that would "fix" anything (the honest response to many of these design/balance suggestions is "I don't know" as seeing the real effect of a change to the game is often unknown and often takes time). But it would certainly be interesting and worth looking at.
On February 06 2014 08:17 Ammanas wrote: DId he say anything at all about the economy aspect of the game? Or again not a single soul asked him? (I did, but I was late -.-)
A couple of people did mention the economy. It was not addressed, possibly because it did not have anything to do with the set guidelines for the AMA (although DK did answer a question on deathballs).
However, DB, did (sort of) address it a while ago prior to HOTS release when LaLush raised it:
LaLush: Sometime between October 2007 and October 2008, you decided to introduce better worker AI, shorten the time workers spent at minerals and decrease the yield to 5 minerals per trip. What happened during this time period that prompted you to change workers? What was your reasoning behind the changes? What are your thoughts on the cap on economic growth in your game? Do you guys at Blizzard at all view your artificial 3 base economic cap as an issue, or is it rather considered a non-issue?
Dustin Browder: One of our goals with workers (especially when it comes to the gas changes with 2 geysers) was to make your economy a little bit more expensive and complicated to manage since (at the time) we had a lot of concerns both on the team and in the community that base building was going to be too simple in SC2.
We discussed this some (but I like your insights here) during the beta for Swarm and felt like it was a pretty huge change at this point to alter core economy. We would have had to rebalance the entire game and at that time we were dealing with Oracle, Widowmine, etc. and those changes were absolutely kicking our butts.
I've PMed you the link to the full AMA in case you find it interesting.
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 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.
Those opportunities are still there, I think, but constrained by map design (close proximity of main, natural and third) and map size. The economy also works against it as you can build a quality army off of two bases. But, overall, I am still unsure if the SC2 economy really needs a radical rework. After all, the notion of a standard 3 base meta in SC2 would have seemed foolish in 2011, but in 2013 it is the norm. In 2015 will 4 and 5 base be the meta with even more action than we currently see at the highest level of play? I don't discount the possibility. Personally, I'm willing to work with what we have and if there is a serious problem to approach it in different ways - especially if radically reworking the economy has too many costs.
You are right in that a hard core turtling player is hard to shift in SC2. But, the other response to this is to just take an economy advantage, no? And to just poke lightly and do incremental damage. Given good scouting, an equal player should generally be able to beat the turtler. After all, Avilo has never been a good player for all of his turtle-ing and meching.
Furthermore, I don't have a problem in SC2 giving that opportunity to players. Some players like to play that way. It is a feature of SC2 I like, that generally you are able to cheese, all-in, turtle or play an active macro style, if you have the skill.
As to the Oracle, I agree. Not so much Recall (as I think that would be OP and also limit Protoss toward SG especially if, as I imagine, Recall was removed from the MSC). But, I do dislike the C-click pulsar beam and the Oracle's role as a "harass unit".
I admire David for actively time and time again reach out to the community that every day shits in his face. I sure as hell wouldn't go to work thinking "let's think of how we could make this game _even better_!" when the feedback I get is mostly bullshit (as in poorly thought out, structured, emotional, irrational etc, not that all whine lacks substance or truth, mind you). Some positive feedback for a change perhaps would revitalize sc2 development team a bit.
I agree with him on force fields completely. Force Fields and Blink are the two biggest things that drew me into the game from the very beginning. If the community surrounding the game thinks FFs are too good, then design more open maps.
Warp gates on the other hand, I agree with him on partially. I really understand the PoV that they complete the assymmetry of production, which is a central feature making SC2 unique when it comes to RTS games. Perhaps some tweak could be made to reduce their offensive capabilities, though, as has been suggested before. I don't really care either way, the protoss race is awesome to play with, against and to watch!
Concerning the economy of the game, what I feel is to be done if we believe the game would benefit from a different economy - design maps where bases beyond the main yield less/more resources, with bases closer together/more spread out etc. Experiments with this has scarcely been done in maps used by pros.
Overall, I think sc2 is a very well balanced and designed game. For those crying and crying, that will never ever be constructive. Voice structured concern and keep a civil discussion, and let the empirical data support you. Saying toss is imba after two months of "dominance" is dumb.
Beside the topic, I call for more moderation here on TL. The starcraft section is barely visitable because of the shit storm of posts like these in this thread:
On February 06 2014 07:28 Meerel wrote: prepare for shallow answers
On February 06 2014 07:39 GuiBz wrote: David Kim, try to make the game more skilled. The protoss macro is just too easy. They can spend their extra gas by wraping HTs and their extra minerals by wraping zealots. The terran player cannot spend his extra gas in late game.
On February 06 2014 07:40 Stress wrote: Nobody is going to learn anything new from this. The balance/design team is just going to keep doing what they have been doing, questionable balance changes while avoiding the real problems. This is nothing more than a PR stunt because everyone on the b.net forums has been complaining about how Blizzard doesn't communicate enough with the community.
On February 06 2014 07:51 boxerfred wrote: He's currently picking the easy questions. Guess he'll continue to do so, but I hope we get some high value information somehow
On February 06 2014 07:58 Val_ wrote: blah blah blah blah.
nothing interesting.
Sorry if that sounds offensive he is not touching controversial subjects. Just blah blah like any manager do.
On February 06 2014 08:01 boxerfred wrote: Pretty much what the lastest two pre-posters said. David Kim is wondering why he receives so much hate out of the community - well, kinda because he's either doing crap (wtf, Hydra 25 gas?), or talking sweet nothings.
On February 06 2014 08:08 boxerfred wrote: What a HUGE disappointment by mr. Kim. "LOL let's pretend we care because 8 pages of questions resemble the community's will"
On February 06 2014 08:10 Meerel wrote: well i dont really see sc2 going anywhere with this guy beeing in charge. ~~
On February 06 2014 08:14 Val_ wrote: Blizz Balance Team =
Two managers randomly met in the smoking room. "Oh, we need to talk about balance in SCII!" - "Okay, lets do it next week"
- So Dustin, how is your silver account? - Idk Kim. I was playing Heroes of Storm last month. Im lead game designer, you know. - Oh..ok. Did you watch MLG? - Sure I did! I watched 1 zvz! seems like no imbalances in ZvZ! - kk thats what im thinking about. Im too bored to watch it too. Ok, i have a meeting now, cya next month!
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.
On February 06 2014 08:31 ShivaN wrote: I just can't believe this guy came from a BW player background... All these fundamental design flaws he either won't admit to, or are just too entrenched in the current game for any hope of them being altered is really depressing.
On February 06 2014 08:31 Squat wrote: I find his answers incoherent and often disconnected from the question. It's difficult to discern what he actually thinks because his way of communicating is so confusing and opaque.
On February 06 2014 08:33 Rainmansc wrote: I love how in PvZ the first 15 mins P has like 20 all ins and zerg has none these days. Can we just have a queen spell that gives a spine 1500 HP and extra range so we can just make the games 20 mins no rush david kim? Should sound like music in your ears... I don't see a bright future for this game
On February 06 2014 08:41 Spaylz wrote: Every time I read one of DK's answer, all I see is utter denial.
His answers mostly consist of admitting a potential problem, as in: "we acknowledge that players think that, but we disagree and we don't see a problem ourselves". Based on his answers, it just seems to me that Blizzard has absolutely no intention of making any major changes. They don't see the problems that a solid portion of the community does, so there is nothing else to see or talk about.
Over the past few months, the complaints about the 30 seconds fight and the death balls have been very consistent, but somehow Blizzard is blind to it. In the end, they make their game however they want, and it seems they don't really listen to anyone who is an outsider to Blizzard.
If the next Q&A sessions are like this, we can be sure that LotV won't bring any meaningful changes to the game.
On February 06 2014 08:52 Pirfiktshon wrote: I can Live with Forcefields its Timewarp that is kind of a back breaker. Reason being is that it is a HUGE overlap of Forcefield mechanics. Its an Ability that can be casted from a decent range from a Flying unit that is 100/100. Even with the energy nerf I don't think this ability is in the best interest of hte game. It makes any and ALL defense / Offense builds 10x stronger for a unit that also has the capability to supercharge a Nexus to be a Super Cannon which is also a Mechanic overlap of photon cannons. Personally I would have liked to ask him why is there sooooooo much overlap in ALL of the Protoss design of units to the point then when you combine them together it gives protoss MASSIVE advantages that I predicted that would come into the play of MASSIVE imbalance that we are just starting to see the tip of the iceberg now LOL past 2 Major tourneys were PVP finals and Mostly populated with P players in the RO16 in both tourneys lol
On February 06 2014 08:58 kasumimi wrote: As a veteran fan of both BW and SC2, this was a very disheartening read.
Even though I don't have any expectations anymore, the reality check is always harsh reminder.
...especially the warpgate/ff comments...
On February 06 2014 09:00 FrostedMiniWheats wrote: meh, nothing but safe and shallow answers here.
On February 06 2014 09:17 BlackCompany wrote: Well normally its good if the developers/balancing team answer community questions but the answer so far basicly show everything. Hes using many words to say as little as possible. There wont be any usefull answeres, only "we keep an eye on that" or "maybe we will address this". Completly useless. Not that i blame him, because what else is he supposed to say?
Oh but i had a good laugh about how he thinks the last patch fixes blink all-ins, thank god my ghosts come with full energy now to stop this.
On February 06 2014 09:30 Blargh1111 wrote: Man, I always get excited every time I see something like this, only to have my hopes and dreams crushed. David Kim even goes as far to say "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." as if it affects blink allins in the slightest... I have news for you David, the game will be dead before LoTV if you keep it up like this, I sure as hell won't be playing then.
EndRant, back to a more balanced, overall better version of sc2, Starbow.
On February 06 2014 09:43 Squat wrote: But it's like a different thing! That means it's good...right? I mean, if we give Ultralisks a Haduken punch that launches enemy units into the air as a form of AA that would be really fucking unique too! This certainly would make the game better, it would make zerg really stand out.
TL;DR: Balance whine, personal attacks and ded gaem shitposts.
Even as a protoss player, I really dislike how there seems to be no interest in looking at addressing FF/coll/warpgates. I would be a happy man if they removed FF and moved warpgates to tier3 tech. Even happier if they replaced the coll with something similar to the reaver which requires some planning to cater and look after.
David does not get enough credit. For one thing, he's right 99% of the time when he gives these answers, but people all have their own agendas and biases and won't really consider what he says. Another is that he's right not to change design with patches, and obviously he can't comment on LOTV yet.
People get mad at him because they want something, unfortunately they're generally unwilling to consider that they are in fact wrong or off about what they want. Some people hate forcefields as a spell, problem is, as much as you might want to believe it, not everybody hates forcefields.
Empirical data? I don't care for it. I do care for the fun of my experience in playing the game.
Very few of those posts were at all beyond the pale or bashing, most were strongly-worded accepted, but reasonably expressed opinions.
Why do people 'cry and cry'. Because it's the only way things ever seem to get done. Look at the Carrier change/keeping it in HoTS, it was essentially pointless but was borne out of people complaining that it was being removed. It didn't fix the issues that prevented Carriers being more common, make them much more microable, but was a reaction to people nonsensically whining. They didn't even implement everything in Nony's video that they themselves said was illuminating.
Blizzard have long since ceased to actually address considered, well-thought out content and do anything beyond a 'we'll take a look at it'.
They DO on the other hand respond to constant complaining, so may as well just do that. That or go and play Starbow or whatever, which I'm quite enjoying atm despite my incompetence at it.
You are right in that a hard core turtling player is hard to shift in SC2. But, the other response to this is to just take an economy advantage, no? And to just poke lightly and do incremental damage. Given good scouting, an equal player should generally be able to beat the turtler. After all, Avilo has never been a good player for all of his turtle-ing and meching.
It's not, and that is pretty much the crux of the entire problem. Out-expanding a turtling opponent simply is not rewarded enough. It does not provide a meaningful increase in mineral income past the third base, and not much in gas past the fourth.
Blizzard basically imported the concept of relative maxed army strength directly from BW into Sc2, which is why we see so many of these stupid SH turtle games. It works fine in a game where you can take 7 bases and trade badly, but not disastrously so, and win through attrition. It does not work in a game where you cap income on 4 bases and any trade will likely be a one-sided massacre. This is why ZvP is such a pile of shit, and will likely become worse as we go.
Yeah his answers don't surprise me. Disappointing on his views of FF and other stuff, but w/e this is expected. At least they are willing to do things like this.
You are right in that a hard core turtling player is hard to shift in SC2. But, the other response to this is to just take an economy advantage, no? And to just poke lightly and do incremental damage. Given good scouting, an equal player should generally be able to beat the turtler. After all, Avilo has never been a good player for all of his turtle-ing and meching.
It's not, and that is pretty much the crux of the entire problem. Out-expanding a turtling opponent simply is not rewarded enough. It does not provide a meaningful increase in mineral income past the third base, and not much in gas past the fourth.
Blizzard basically imported the concept of relative maxed army strength directly from BW into Sc2, which is why we see so many of these stupid SH turtle games. It works fine in a game where you can take 7 bases and trade badly, but not disastrously so, and win through attrition. It does not work in a game where you cap income on 4 bases and any trade will likely be a one-sided massacre. This is why ZvP is such a pile of shit, and will likely become worse as we go.
But, is the problem with that the turtle-style or the SwarmHost? I mean, historically speaking, the best SC2 players have generally been aggressive players or active macro players. It's usually average or poor players who turtle away but, if a player is equally as skilled and is up with his scouting, I don't see it as much of a problem as you (or Ammanas) seem to think it is.
You may be right that the advantage in expanding is not as high as it should be. And it makes the engagement so important.
On February 06 2014 10:36 Whitewing wrote: David does not get enough credit. For one thing, he's right 99% of the time when he gives these answers, but people all have their own agendas and biases and won't really consider what he says. Another is that he's right not to change design with patches, and obviously he can't comment on LOTV yet.
People get mad at him because they want something, unfortunately they're generally unwilling to consider that they are in fact wrong or off about what they want. Some people hate forcefields as a spell, problem is, as much as you might want to believe it, not everybody hates forcefields.
I am perfectly capable of imagining that a protoss player is very fond of FF. It follows a concept that has been very prevalent with Blizzard for a while now; fun to use, not too difficult, and exceptionally frustrating to watch and play against.
On February 06 2014 10:47 Wombat_NI wrote: Zerg are by far my least played race, but all it takes is one game where you have a WP sentry drop FFing your ramp lol. Such a silly ability.
I used to think that, but lately Dear has been doing late-game warp prism drops in PvZ where it's three zealots and a sentry instead of four sentries. He goes to the main and forcefields the ramp to allow his zealots (and warp in reinforcements) to do more damage.
It's literally so sick to watch.
If that can be in the game and be effective late game, and actually take skill to keep track of (given the investment you're doing), I think early sentry drops are an okay trade.
You are right in that a hard core turtling player is hard to shift in SC2. But, the other response to this is to just take an economy advantage, no? And to just poke lightly and do incremental damage. Given good scouting, an equal player should generally be able to beat the turtler. After all, Avilo has never been a good player for all of his turtle-ing and meching.
It's not, and that is pretty much the crux of the entire problem. Out-expanding a turtling opponent simply is not rewarded enough. It does not provide a meaningful increase in mineral income past the third base, and not much in gas past the fourth.
Blizzard basically imported the concept of relative maxed army strength directly from BW into Sc2, which is why we see so many of these stupid SH turtle games. It works fine in a game where you can take 7 bases and trade badly, but not disastrously so, and win through attrition. It does not work in a game where you cap income on 4 bases and any trade will likely be a one-sided massacre. This is why ZvP is such a pile of shit, and will likely become worse as we go.
But, is the problem with that the turtle-style or the SwarmHost? I mean, historically speaking, the best SC2 players have generally been aggressive players or active macro players. It's usually average or poor players who turtle away but, if a player is equally as skilled and is up with his scouting, I don't see it as much of a problem as you (or Ammanas) seem to think it is.
You may be right that the advantage in expanding is not as high as it should be. And it makes the engagement so important.
Edit/ Anyway, time to ladder.
I could go through a rather long winded explanation here, but it's a little too late. Maybe tomorrow. To summarize, a complete lack incentive for zerg to be aggressive in the late game because of highly lopsided trades and similar ecos. Swarm hosts are a symptom, not the actual disease. Focus becomes either a 15 second engagement to decide a 45 minute game, or slow death over an hour. Rudimentary at best, will elaborate in future.
On February 06 2014 10:47 Wombat_NI wrote: Zerg are by far my least played race, but all it takes is one game where you have a WP sentry drop FFing your ramp lol. Such a silly ability.
You get used to it after a while. The MacSed drop will still kill you occasionally, but can be defended.
Why not hire someone who could fix all the longstanding issues in patches and months, rather than the years and expansions you seem to need to do it? Why did you have to resort to the crutch of extremely standardized maps?
On February 06 2014 10:47 Wombat_NI wrote: Zerg are by far my least played race, but all it takes is one game where you have a WP sentry drop FFing your ramp lol. Such a silly ability.
I used to think that, but lately Dear has been doing late-game warp prism drops in PvZ where it's three zealots and a sentry instead of four sentries. He goes to the main and forcefields the ramp to allow his zealots (and warp in reinforcements) to do more damage.
It's literally so sick to watch.
If that can be in the game and be effective late game, and actually take skill to keep track of (given the investment you're doing), I think early sentry drops are an okay trade.
Stuff like that IS cool. Startale Ace's legendary game vs BboongBboong was where I first saw that kind of lategame shenanigans. The problem for me with Protoss is that for every cool thing they can do with those units and abilities lategame, there's about 20 obnoxious things that can be done with them in the early/midgame
On February 06 2014 10:47 Wombat_NI wrote: Zerg are by far my least played race, but all it takes is one game where you have a WP sentry drop FFing your ramp lol. Such a silly ability.
I used to think that, but lately Dear has been doing late-game warp prism drops in PvZ where it's three zealots and a sentry instead of four sentries. He goes to the main and forcefields the ramp to allow his zealots (and warp in reinforcements) to do more damage.
It's literally so sick to watch.
If that can be in the game and be effective late game, and actually take skill to keep track of (given the investment you're doing), I think early sentry drops are an okay trade.
Stuff like that IS cool. Startale Ace's legendary game vs BboongBboong was where I first saw that kind of lategame shenanigans. The problem for me with Protoss is that for every cool thing they can do with those units and abilities lategame, there's about 20 obnoxious things that can be done with them in the early/midgame
yes. there are cool abailites that every race has (protoss having most of them). when they are used in such a way that they look cool or skilfull, its all well and good. but most of these abiilites are just silly stupid ways to abuse a mechanic that the other race will have no real answer to. (the infamous idra cruncher game where cruncher does the "" is a prime example of this). For some reason blizzard seems forever ignorant to this.
On February 06 2014 10:36 Whitewing wrote: David does not get enough credit. For one thing, he's right 99% of the time when he gives these answers, but people all have their own agendas and biases and won't really consider what he says. Another is that he's right not to change design with patches, and obviously he can't comment on LOTV yet.
People get mad at him because they want something, unfortunately they're generally unwilling to consider that they are in fact wrong or off about what they want. Some people hate forcefields as a spell, problem is, as much as you might want to believe it, not everybody hates forcefields.
I am perfectly capable of imagining that a protoss player is very fond of FF. It follows a concept that has been very prevalent with Blizzard for a while now; fun to use, not too difficult, and exceptionally frustrating to watch and play against.
Except that there are things you can do about it. They made burrow move faster, moved burrow to hatch. Massive units crush them. Terrans lift forcefielded units all the time with medivacs. It's not that bad.
On February 06 2014 10:36 Whitewing wrote: David does not get enough credit. For one thing, he's right 99% of the time when he gives these answers, but people all have their own agendas and biases and won't really consider what he says. Another is that he's right not to change design with patches, and obviously he can't comment on LOTV yet.
People get mad at him because they want something, unfortunately they're generally unwilling to consider that they are in fact wrong or off about what they want. Some people hate forcefields as a spell, problem is, as much as you might want to believe it, not everybody hates forcefields.
I am perfectly capable of imagining that a protoss player is very fond of FF. It follows a concept that has been very prevalent with Blizzard for a while now; fun to use, not too difficult, and exceptionally frustrating to watch and play against.
Except that there are things you can do about it. They made burrow move faster, moved burrow to hatch. Massive units crush them. Terrans lift forcefielded units all the time with medivacs. It's not that bad.
The point is, complainers are very loud.
Watching terrans snatch their units out of forcefields with medicvacs is pretty dope. I have always enjoyed it. I wouldn't mind seeing more burrow too. Tunneling claws is great, but never comes up in most pro-matches, which is a bummer.
On February 06 2014 10:47 Wombat_NI wrote: Zerg are by far my least played race, but all it takes is one game where you have a WP sentry drop FFing your ramp lol. Such a silly ability.
Yea cuz this happens so often in pro games and is a major problem!
On February 06 2014 10:36 Whitewing wrote: David does not get enough credit. For one thing, he's right 99% of the time when he gives these answers, but people all have their own agendas and biases and won't really consider what he says. Another is that he's right not to change design with patches, and obviously he can't comment on LOTV yet.
People get mad at him because they want something, unfortunately they're generally unwilling to consider that they are in fact wrong or off about what they want. Some people hate forcefields as a spell, problem is, as much as you might want to believe it, not everybody hates forcefields.
I am perfectly capable of imagining that a protoss player is very fond of FF. It follows a concept that has been very prevalent with Blizzard for a while now; fun to use, not too difficult, and exceptionally frustrating to watch and play against.
Except that there are things you can do about it. They made burrow move faster, moved burrow to hatch. Massive units crush them. Terrans lift forcefielded units all the time with medivacs. It's not that bad.
The point is, complainers are very loud.
It's not OP, it's just stupid and obnoxious. The fact that counter-moves exist does not make it less so. They are absurdly easy to use compared to the counters required to fight them. This is a common theme with protoss in general.
If David feels they are a net positive for the game, so be it. I'm glad that I can at least know that it won't change.
I dont think forcefields is a huge problem by themseves anymore, its more the fact that balance around forcefields (and to an extent warpgate) limits map making a fair share. With protoss relying on FF vs zerg, you HAVE to have a ramp with small choke at the natural, you HAVE to have a pretty close third. Etc etc.
Thats the real problem with forcefields, not whether they remove micro or not.
On February 06 2014 10:36 Whitewing wrote: David does not get enough credit. For one thing, he's right 99% of the time when he gives these answers, but people all have their own agendas and biases and won't really consider what he says. Another is that he's right not to change design with patches, and obviously he can't comment on LOTV yet.
People get mad at him because they want something, unfortunately they're generally unwilling to consider that they are in fact wrong or off about what they want. Some people hate forcefields as a spell, problem is, as much as you might want to believe it, not everybody hates forcefields.
I am perfectly capable of imagining that a protoss player is very fond of FF. It follows a concept that has been very prevalent with Blizzard for a while now; fun to use, not too difficult, and exceptionally frustrating to watch and play against.
Except that there are things you can do about it. They made burrow move faster, moved burrow to hatch. Massive units crush them. Terrans lift forcefielded units all the time with medivacs. It's not that bad.
The point is, complainers are very loud.
It's not OP, it's just stupid and obnoxious. The fact that counter-moves exist does not make it less so. They are absurdly easy to use compared to the counters required to fight them. This is a common theme with protoss in general.
If David feels they are a net positive for the game, so be it. I'm glad that I can at least know that it won't change.
Almost every game with overhead control of units has stuns, roots, slows and other abilities that make it so you can't move. Dota 2 is filled with them and then people buy items that give them the ability to move their team mates out of harms way. Its good play and counter play. BW was filled with them as well.
On February 06 2014 10:36 Whitewing wrote: David does not get enough credit. For one thing, he's right 99% of the time when he gives these answers, but people all have their own agendas and biases and won't really consider what he says. Another is that he's right not to change design with patches, and obviously he can't comment on LOTV yet.
People get mad at him because they want something, unfortunately they're generally unwilling to consider that they are in fact wrong or off about what they want. Some people hate forcefields as a spell, problem is, as much as you might want to believe it, not everybody hates forcefields.
I am perfectly capable of imagining that a protoss player is very fond of FF. It follows a concept that has been very prevalent with Blizzard for a while now; fun to use, not too difficult, and exceptionally frustrating to watch and play against.
Except that there are things you can do about it. They made burrow move faster, moved burrow to hatch. Massive units crush them. Terrans lift forcefielded units all the time with medivacs. It's not that bad.
The point is, complainers are very loud.
It's not OP, it's just stupid and obnoxious. The fact that counter-moves exist does not make it less so. They are absurdly easy to use compared to the counters required to fight them. This is a common theme with protoss in general.
If David feels they are a net positive for the game, so be it. I'm glad that I can at least know that it won't change.
Almost every game with overhead control of units has stuns, roots, slows and other abilities that make it so you can't move. Dota 2 is filled with them and then people buy items that give them the ability to move their team mates out of harms way. Its good play and counter play. BW was filled with them as well.
I agree, I'm pretty OG as far as dota goes(I was playing when the Gambler was in the game, for reference). The thing is, the counter play for dota is to use BKB or another immunity spell, or have teammates disable enemy heroes in turn. There is a balance in terms of relative difficulty involved.
FF place the entire burden on the person being forcefielded, it requires too little to use and too much to counter. The relative difficulty is out of balance. It's kind of like zergs in WoL telling terrans to always keep their vikings spread to avoid the instant fungals. Sure it's doable, but one side has it much easier.
On February 06 2014 10:36 Whitewing wrote: David does not get enough credit. For one thing, he's right 99% of the time when he gives these answers, but people all have their own agendas and biases and won't really consider what he says. Another is that he's right not to change design with patches, and obviously he can't comment on LOTV yet.
People get mad at him because they want something, unfortunately they're generally unwilling to consider that they are in fact wrong or off about what they want. Some people hate forcefields as a spell, problem is, as much as you might want to believe it, not everybody hates forcefields.
I am perfectly capable of imagining that a protoss player is very fond of FF. It follows a concept that has been very prevalent with Blizzard for a while now; fun to use, not too difficult, and exceptionally frustrating to watch and play against.
Except that there are things you can do about it. They made burrow move faster, moved burrow to hatch. Massive units crush them. Terrans lift forcefielded units all the time with medivacs. It's not that bad.
The point is, complainers are very loud.
It's not OP, it's just stupid and obnoxious. The fact that counter-moves exist does not make it less so. They are absurdly easy to use compared to the counters required to fight them. This is a common theme with protoss in general.
If David feels they are a net positive for the game, so be it. I'm glad that I can at least know that it won't change.
Almost every game with overhead control of units has stuns, roots, slows and other abilities that make it so you can't move. Dota 2 is filled with them and then people buy items that give them the ability to move their team mates out of harms way. Its good play and counter play. BW was filled with them as well.
I agree, I'm pretty OG as far as dota goes(I was playing when the Gambler was in the game, for reference). The thing is, the counter play for dota is to use BKB or another immunity spell, or have teammates disable enemy heroes in turn. There is a balance in terms of relative difficulty involved.
FF place the entire burden on the person being forcefielded, it requires too little to use and too much to counter. The relative difficulty is out of balance. It's kind of like zergs in WoL telling terrans to always keep their vikings spread to avoid the instant fungals. Sure it's doable, but one side has it much easier.
Thats how all counter play works. One side has to do something and then the other side responds. First the protoss has to throw down good forcefields and split up the army, then the other player has to respond. Or the protoss army gets surrounded by zerglings and the protoss player responds by pushing them back with forcefields. All micro is back and forth.
Biggest problem with the community is that they are unable to discern balance from their own games and insist that Blizzard changes the game based on what they as players have a hard time against. Its getting a bit over the top as a complaining culture on in game threads and more appropriate topics like this on team liquid.
Balance is hard to define and often is just that way due to current maps and the metagame. Some maps blink is really strong on...some maps swarm hosts are really strong...some maps drops are really strong. Not to say things aren't balanced, but they are about as balanced as Brood War was and the game is still evolving.
Another thing to note is that many people blind counter strats. I want to say that at least 4 of the last 5 games I built an oracle vs Terran there was a turret in one mineral line and marines in another and not once was my Stargate scouted. Nony played crazy safe blind countering early on with his 10 Gateway and get a zealot out quick just in case build. Certain things can just be stopped or slowed down.
We got the answers for the most part we expected from David Kim because the questions weren't all that good and especially because they put in the askers personal bias.
If you want a good answer from David Kim just ask
"Code S seems to be heavily Protoss and light on Terran in Korea where it use to be heavy Terran and light on Protoss. What do you think is causing this and how are you looking at addressing it?"
Then get ready to hear about a Mothership Core sight change or about how many of the historically best Terran players (Polt, Bomber, MVP, Taeja, MMA, Jjakji) are currently playing outside of Korea. But at least you'll get to hear David Kim's thoughts on something rather than just getting an answer we already know.
Also, remember that Protoss was archon toilet vs Broodlord Infestor and on the short end vs Terran during much of Wings of Liberty and many of the fixes to those problems were done during the next expansion. For all we know David Kim already has a new Terran unit that addresses what we see as a weakness in Terran slated for the expansion and as such isn't super interested in making more than minor adjustments until then. Not saying that is the best way to do things, but its the easiest way to plan the game I'd think.
On February 06 2014 10:36 Whitewing wrote: David does not get enough credit. For one thing, he's right 99% of the time when he gives these answers, but people all have their own agendas and biases and won't really consider what he says. Another is that he's right not to change design with patches, and obviously he can't comment on LOTV yet.
People get mad at him because they want something, unfortunately they're generally unwilling to consider that they are in fact wrong or off about what they want. Some people hate forcefields as a spell, problem is, as much as you might want to believe it, not everybody hates forcefields.
I am perfectly capable of imagining that a protoss player is very fond of FF. It follows a concept that has been very prevalent with Blizzard for a while now; fun to use, not too difficult, and exceptionally frustrating to watch and play against.
Except that there are things you can do about it. They made burrow move faster, moved burrow to hatch. Massive units crush them. Terrans lift forcefielded units all the time with medivacs. It's not that bad.
The point is, complainers are very loud.
It's not OP, it's just stupid and obnoxious. The fact that counter-moves exist does not make it less so. They are absurdly easy to use compared to the counters required to fight them. This is a common theme with protoss in general.
If David feels they are a net positive for the game, so be it. I'm glad that I can at least know that it won't change.
Almost every game with overhead control of units has stuns, roots, slows and other abilities that make it so you can't move. Dota 2 is filled with them and then people buy items that give them the ability to move their team mates out of harms way. Its good play and counter play. BW was filled with them as well.
I agree, I'm pretty OG as far as dota goes(I was playing when the Gambler was in the game, for reference). The thing is, the counter play for dota is to use BKB or another immunity spell, or have teammates disable enemy heroes in turn. There is a balance in terms of relative difficulty involved.
FF place the entire burden on the person being forcefielded, it requires too little to use and too much to counter. The relative difficulty is out of balance. It's kind of like zergs in WoL telling terrans to always keep their vikings spread to avoid the instant fungals. Sure it's doable, but one side has it much easier.
Thats how all counter play works. One side has to do something and then the other side responds. First the protoss has to throw down good forcefields and split up the army, then the other player has to respond. Or the protoss army gets surrounded by zerglings and the protoss player responds by pushing them back with forcefields. All micro is back and forth.
And I'm saying it's too easy for one side. The difficulty involved is too lopsided.
I really wonder whats his fulltime job because it sure as hell is not starcraft2. What it is that he does 90% of his work time?? He comes with bad maps every three months, lackluster patch that is very often not even significant to the game and sometimes (few times a year) he does small apperance in the community. stunning really.
If he at least had the balls to answer the hot topics.
On February 06 2014 10:47 Wombat_NI wrote: Zerg are by far my least played race, but all it takes is one game where you have a WP sentry drop FFing your ramp lol. Such a silly ability.
Yea cuz this happens so often in pro games and is a major problem!
It's an extreme example of the stupidity of forcefield, which has never ever been looked at. Even high HP, non-aggroing destructible forcefields which would resolve that specific issue has never really been tested. With Warpgate you don't just remove it either, but there has never been anything done to it bar changes to research time since WoL's Beta.
I mean, by all means bring everything back to outright balance at the pro level, if that's what you're looking the game isn't in a terrible spot by any means. The people who are vocal whiners may be a huge minority, there just seems a hell of a lot of them, or a hell of a lot of people who no longer play and just watch the game. Which is fine, if they can be held onto in perpetuity.
On February 06 2014 10:36 Whitewing wrote: David does not get enough credit. For one thing, he's right 99% of the time when he gives these answers, but people all have their own agendas and biases and won't really consider what he says. Another is that he's right not to change design with patches, and obviously he can't comment on LOTV yet.
People get mad at him because they want something, unfortunately they're generally unwilling to consider that they are in fact wrong or off about what they want. Some people hate forcefields as a spell, problem is, as much as you might want to believe it, not everybody hates forcefields.
I am perfectly capable of imagining that a protoss player is very fond of FF. It follows a concept that has been very prevalent with Blizzard for a while now; fun to use, not too difficult, and exceptionally frustrating to watch and play against.
Except that there are things you can do about it. They made burrow move faster, moved burrow to hatch. Massive units crush them. Terrans lift forcefielded units all the time with medivacs. It's not that bad.
The point is, complainers are very loud.
It's not OP, it's just stupid and obnoxious. The fact that counter-moves exist does not make it less so. They are absurdly easy to use compared to the counters required to fight them. This is a common theme with protoss in general.
If David feels they are a net positive for the game, so be it. I'm glad that I can at least know that it won't change.
Almost every game with overhead control of units has stuns, roots, slows and other abilities that make it so you can't move. Dota 2 is filled with them and then people buy items that give them the ability to move their team mates out of harms way. Its good play and counter play. BW was filled with them as well.
I agree, I'm pretty OG as far as dota goes(I was playing when the Gambler was in the game, for reference). The thing is, the counter play for dota is to use BKB or another immunity spell, or have teammates disable enemy heroes in turn. There is a balance in terms of relative difficulty involved.
FF place the entire burden on the person being forcefielded, it requires too little to use and too much to counter. The relative difficulty is out of balance. It's kind of like zergs in WoL telling terrans to always keep their vikings spread to avoid the instant fungals. Sure it's doable, but one side has it much easier.
Thats how all counter play works. One side has to do something and then the other side responds. First the protoss has to throw down good forcefields and split up the army, then the other player has to respond. Or the protoss army gets surrounded by zerglings and the protoss player responds by pushing them back with forcefields. All micro is back and forth.
And I'm saying it's too easy for one side. The difficulty involved is too lopsided.
I don't really feel that is true, but this is a subject a lot of people disagree on. I don't really think stutter stepping is huge challenge, but some people say its very hard with all the other stuff terran has to deal with and that sounds like it is likely true. Of course FF are easy to land when someone is charging up your ramp, but every spell is easy to land when someone is charging into you, from EMP to fungle.
On February 06 2014 10:36 Whitewing wrote: David does not get enough credit. For one thing, he's right 99% of the time when he gives these answers, but people all have their own agendas and biases and won't really consider what he says. Another is that he's right not to change design with patches, and obviously he can't comment on LOTV yet.
People get mad at him because they want something, unfortunately they're generally unwilling to consider that they are in fact wrong or off about what they want. Some people hate forcefields as a spell, problem is, as much as you might want to believe it, not everybody hates forcefields.
I am perfectly capable of imagining that a protoss player is very fond of FF. It follows a concept that has been very prevalent with Blizzard for a while now; fun to use, not too difficult, and exceptionally frustrating to watch and play against.
Except that there are things you can do about it. They made burrow move faster, moved burrow to hatch. Massive units crush them. Terrans lift forcefielded units all the time with medivacs. It's not that bad.
The point is, complainers are very loud.
It's not OP, it's just stupid and obnoxious. The fact that counter-moves exist does not make it less so. They are absurdly easy to use compared to the counters required to fight them. This is a common theme with protoss in general.
If David feels they are a net positive for the game, so be it. I'm glad that I can at least know that it won't change.
Almost every game with overhead control of units has stuns, roots, slows and other abilities that make it so you can't move. Dota 2 is filled with them and then people buy items that give them the ability to move their team mates out of harms way. Its good play and counter play. BW was filled with them as well.
I agree, I'm pretty OG as far as dota goes(I was playing when the Gambler was in the game, for reference). The thing is, the counter play for dota is to use BKB or another immunity spell, or have teammates disable enemy heroes in turn. There is a balance in terms of relative difficulty involved.
FF place the entire burden on the person being forcefielded, it requires too little to use and too much to counter. The relative difficulty is out of balance. It's kind of like zergs in WoL telling terrans to always keep their vikings spread to avoid the instant fungals. Sure it's doable, but one side has it much easier.
Thats how all counter play works. One side has to do something and then the other side responds. First the protoss has to throw down good forcefields and split up the army, then the other player has to respond. Or the protoss army gets surrounded by zerglings and the protoss player responds by pushing them back with forcefields. All micro is back and forth.
And I'm saying it's too easy for one side. The difficulty involved is too lopsided.
I don't really feel that is true, but this is a subject a lot of people disagree on. I don't really think stutter stepping is huge challenge, but some people say its very hard with all the other stuff terran has to deal with and that sounds like it is likely true. Of course FF are easy to land when someone is charging up your ramp, but every spell is easy to land when someone is charging into you, from EMP to fungle.
How much Terran have you actually played?
I do regard stutter-stepping as pretty brainless really, splitting utilises your brain a bit more and I consider it something you do a bit more consciously. It does however add a hell of a lot of mechanical difficulty when you're having to do that every engagement and macro simultaneously.
Protoss you have to sit and think (not too long mind) about FF placement, storms etc, those are skills that people (especially Terran-only players) oft-devalue.
I dislike that those skills are less critical now in early/midgame defense because the MSC is such a frigging catch-all awesome defensive unit, but that's unlikely to change anytime soon and I can't have EVERYTHING the way I want it.
I've loved Blizzard games since WCII back when I was a kid. I've always been loyal to Blizzard like so many others. SC1, D2 and WCIII were all amazing, ground breaking games. But truthfully, they really fucked up with SC2. D3 aside, they did not adequately think through that competing games would swallow up their player base. SC2, now that I've stopped playing but still watch, has objectively become repetitive, stale and seems unlikely to make it as an esport in the long-run. It's pretty saddening really... Blizzard became the complacent giant.. Just like Microsoft.
First of all, not bad responses overall DK. But needs work in these areas:
Tanks are bad
We don't believe tanks suck. Tanks seem to be a lot more effective in TvZ since the last buff
- the last tank buff? You mean the attack speed buff that literally adds no DPS based on how fast engagements happen? okay bro. More like tanks are used more cause widow mines have been nerfed.
Zerg Anti-air
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.
- what about late game zerg vs voidray deathball? Anti-air is important vs toss also even if you count out phoenixes.
Blink vs terran
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.
- LOOOL what. How does this patch change anything for blink? you just made time warp cost 25 more - irrelevant since it needs to be just cast once on the ramp at any point.
This makes me very sad. I don't know why I keep holding on thinking they will make the game slightly more like brood war. It's just not my cup of tea and never will be
Also, remember that Protoss was archon toilet vs Broodlord Infestor and on the short end vs Terran during much of Wings of Liberty and many of the fixes to those problems were done during the next expansion. For all we know David Kim already has a new Terran unit that addresses what we see as a weakness in Terran slated for the expansion and as such isn't super interested in making more than minor adjustments until then. Not saying that is the best way to do things, but its the easiest way to plan the game I'd think.
I hope that true I like getting new units if they didn't make new units then you might as well be playing bw not saying that bad either. It true I get mad when a protoss warp like a bunch of zealots in the main with a warp prism what could of stop it would be maybe one or two turrent and warp gate units can get stomp if it's just warpgate units with just adding in some ghost. I play terran I enjoy playing the race and like you what you said about balance it hard to judge just like the nerf on wm when zerg was finding way around wm (ultralisks transitioning into broodlords late game) was very cool to watch, now you just see ling baneling into ultralisk infestor still interesting to watch though.
Also this is just an opinion on one of the possible reason why terran haven't been winning it could be because of the buff of mech and nerf of wm which I seen a lot more of mech lately and people trying to redefine bio (marine hellbat medvic) which i think it should be more like marine hellion medvic but I won't go to far in that topic for now.
On February 06 2014 07:39 GuiBz wrote: David Kim, try to make the game more skilled. The protoss macro is just too easy. They can spend their extra gas by wraping HTs and their extra minerals by wraping zealots. The terran player cannot spend his extra gas in late game.
If the Terran's aren't spending their extra gas, maybe they should not take as many geysers then? You see zerg's all the time pulling workers off gas to accrue minerals, or just having expansions that are purely for gas mining. Terran's are probably the least creative players right now, because they feel like everything is either already been figured out, or just aren't trying new things because it's been deemed "not good in this matchup". That has nothing to do with WarpGate at all.
Anyways, back on topic. Honestly, the selection of questions that were answered were pretty terrible, like this was all the community could come up with? There was little, to no thought put into the majority of these questions, so bitching about "empty answers" and shit like that is just ridiculous. This guy can't win no matter what he does. I actually thought his responses were well thought out, and showed insight into what they are actually thinking, and made logical sense when you actually thought about it from his (balance team) position. I have probably been one of the most vocal and unrelenting bashers of the Swarm Host and lategame PvZ, but after reading his answer to one of the questions, I actually understand where they are coming from. I actually really like the non-stop action they create during the game, and the genius multi-pronged attacks and harrassment some of the players pull off in some of these games. The only problem is, while the non-stop action is nice and all, when it is against "Free Units" that constantly spawn automatically, you can't help but feel it's just an "empty" fight with no risk involved. Another problem I have is they don't really do anything to raise the skill-ceiling of the game, for instance, having the units spawn automatically, sorounded by static defense that you don't control, while rallying them across the map while they attack with being commanded takes absolutely no skill to pull off. That's a major problem imo, and that's ignoring the resource advantage they create in the lategame. But honestly, just a little tweaking of the unit would make it much better in general, because right now players just mass swarm host, get some vipers,static defense, and corruptors and just sit back and wait for the Protoss to give up or attack into your massive defense and die.
On February 06 2014 12:30 Beef Noodles wrote: This makes me very sad. I don't know why I keep holding on thinking they will make the game slightly more like brood war. It's just not my cup of tea and never will be
They already made Brood War, so making it again doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Making sc2 more like Brood War would include: recreating the shitty and retarded unit AI, recreating the horrible and retarded unit pathing, going back to 1 structure selection hotkeys, completely destroying the balance of the game because Brood War was not balanced; there were just completely lopsided maps that gave the illusion of balance, and many other things that I'm not going to go into.
I understand people like Brood War, but honestly Brood War is still around so go play it. There has also been many custom maps that have recreated Brood War in the sc2 engine, along with modifications of BW and some aspects of SC2 like Starbow. There are things out there to play if you want to play it. But don't keep bitching that they didn't just update BroodWar's graphics and say it was a new game.
I'd much rather them just keep trying to improve the game we have, because I and a lot of other people have a shit ton of fun playing it. Just looking at the improvement from WoL to HotS in terms of skill ceiling and overall enjoyment level of the game, it's a big improvement. But the infinite skill-ceiling BroodWar possessed was partly due to the major faults in the game design, and some of the more frustrating things like the unit pathings, retarded AI, limited unit selection, non auto-split on workers, non auto mine on workers, and so on. These things were put in the game to cater more towards the casual player, and it's a good thing imo. It's still incredibly hard to become a top level player in sc2, but there's people who couldn't even dream of ever competing in BroodWar. And that game was almost a decade old by the time people really figured it out and it was being played at the highest level. HotS has been out less than a year(sort of) and WoL only a couple years longer than that although it doesn't really count because of the new units/patches. There's still so much to be figured out in this game I can't even imagine what the pro matches are going to be like in 2-3 years down the line even.
You can't say there aren't the questions there. Maybe in that thread, but there have been a lot of things thrown in that at least merit some response or actual detail. The likes of Lalush's air micro thread. I'm not even talking about implementing it, it's just clear a fair amount of considered thought went into those kind of things, and they get dismissed a bit out-of-hand for my taste.
That said I find the constant David Kim bashing unedifying, he's one guy, we literally don't even know what resources are being allocated to the SC2 side of things when it comes to patching and continuing to work on the thing.
Anyway, yeah I'll stop my continuous whining. Don't enjoy the game anymore, don't see it changing anytime so will play SBow, maybe some of the old games from my childhood. Maybe quit gaming altogether as I really don't get the fun out of it as I did as a youngster. Plenty of people enjoy the game of SC2, so to continually bitch about it is unfair to them when some of them just want to discuss a game that they like.
I guess I just don't understand how DK thinks seeing oracles almost every time in PvT isn't an indication that they went too far with the buff...
Like, sure, people can defend it, but when it's in such a huge number of games even when it's often defended well, doesn't that maybe tip you off that you overbuffed even just a little bit?
DK just has a completely different mindset for the game's future. A far more shittier and more death-bally future. I lost complete faith in blizz when they ruined SC2 with that queen patch.
On February 06 2014 14:07 TimENT wrote: DK just has a completely different mindset for the game's future. A far more shittier and more death-bally future. I lost complete faith in blizz when they ruined SC2 with that queen patch.
BL-infestor was already a problem before the queen patch. Every matchup besides maybe pre-queen patch TvZ was worse in WoL.
On February 06 2014 14:07 TimENT wrote: DK just has a completely different mindset for the game's future. A far more shittier and more death-bally future. I lost complete faith in blizz when they ruined SC2 with that queen patch.
BL-infestor was already a problem before the queen patch. Every matchup besides maybe pre-queen patch TvZ was worse in WoL.
Yeah...no. Pre-queen patch TvZ was incredible back then. TvT was incredible back then (still equally as good). TvP was good back then because T could actually threaten P before the 2000 minute mark. PvP ended before 10 minutes (thank god, all P matchups blow). PvZ sucked and always will suck.
MAINLY...ZvZ was fucking intense. Baneling wars were fun. This massing bullshit I see now is just awful. Sigh. Blizz you really killed this game. So much potential.
On February 06 2014 14:07 TimENT wrote: DK just has a completely different mindset for the game's future. A far more shittier and more death-bally future. I lost complete faith in blizz when they ruined SC2 with that queen patch.
BL-infestor was already a problem before the queen patch. Every matchup besides maybe pre-queen patch TvZ was worse in WoL.
Yeah...no. Pre-queen patch TvZ was incredible back then. TvT was incredible back then (still equally as good). TvP was good back then because T could actually threaten P before the 2000 minute mark. PvP ended before 10 minutes (thank god, all P matchups blow). PvZ sucked and always will suck.
MAINLY...ZvZ was fucking intense. Baneling wars were fun. This massing bullshit I see now is just awful. Sigh. Blizz you really killed this game. So much potential.
I'll always remember you, 2011 SC2.
2011 SC2 would have turned into 2012 SC2 queen patch or no. Only exception is TvZ which is good in HotS anyway.
Basically the fact that they see the current state as satisfactory is the biggest problem. We have been going downhill pretty much since the inception of sc2, that they continue to ignore arguments that justify this is incredible.
On February 06 2014 14:25 Cheren wrote: 2011 SC2 would have turned into 2012 SC2 queen patch or no.
Not really.
About Kim: I am extremely disappointed by his stance and answers. Reading this Q&A convinced me that SC2 will only keep on going downhill. Not only they're not interested in the slightest to make the game as appealing to viewers and players (complete disregard for BW, destroying SC2 in 2011), they're in this mindset of 'oh well it will eventually fix itself, and if it doesn't we'll try something at LotV'. Unbelievable.
When I think Magic R&D is pretty remote and bad regarding Feedback I return to see this pile of garbage. Reading the first question and answer is...well...he didn't answer the question at all and reiterated an 'everything is fine' and ignorance of BW that is laughable (I guess he thinks BW was mass into 200/200 and one fight to end the game? LOL). Way to go DK.
On February 06 2014 14:38 Aveng3r wrote: Basically the fact that they see the current state as satisfactory is the biggest problem. We have been going downhill pretty much since the inception of sc2, that they continue to ignore arguments that justify this is incredible.
Pretty much this. Disregard of the huge amount of whining from several sources, it is visible that a great amount of players feels like the game is wrong concept wise. Unfortunately everybody (including myself) is stupid and blindly love the game and Blizzard, keeping faith that someday it will become the game we expect. Definitely won't happen.
DK justifying why they keep the game so different from BW reminds me on Jay Wilson on D3, and how he stubbornly kept the game distant to D2 and ended up with a shit game...
On February 06 2014 14:38 Aveng3r wrote: Basically the fact that they see the current state as satisfactory is the biggest problem. We have been going downhill pretty much since the inception of sc2, that they continue to ignore arguments that justify this is incredible.
Not really. There's not a single previous patch that would result in more balanced winrates if it were played today.
take that back, the pre-widow mine nerf, combined mech upgrades, oracle buff patch was probably better.
On February 06 2014 14:07 TimENT wrote: DK just has a completely different mindset for the game's future. A far more shittier and more death-bally future. I lost complete faith in blizz when they ruined SC2 with that queen patch.
BL-infestor was already a problem before the queen patch. Every matchup besides maybe pre-queen patch TvZ was worse in WoL.
Yeah...no. Pre-queen patch TvZ was incredible back then. TvT was incredible back then (still equally as good). TvP was good back then because T could actually threaten P before the 2000 minute mark. PvP ended before 10 minutes (thank god, all P matchups blow). PvZ sucked and always will suck.
MAINLY...ZvZ was fucking intense. Baneling wars were fun. This massing bullshit I see now is just awful. Sigh. Blizz you really killed this game. So much potential.
I'll always remember you, 2011 SC2.
I think nostalgia is speaking.
Pre queen patch most TvZs were hellions killing zerg or zerg holding hellions handedly and winning from there. The games where it wasn't that, it was terran going hellion into 3 CC with no threat at all and zerg falling behind then dying later. Broodlord infestor wasn't an issue because zerg couldn't get there most of the time: midgame centric plays like ling/bling/muta were common. The matchup wasn't that great, hellions were way too good. The queen patch made zerg too strong defensively, so then they could rush 3 bases then straight to broodlord/infestor with only a short midgame, which accentuated the problem.
TvP wasn't all that good back then either: terran was the only one that could be aggressive at all (apart from some minor all-ins from toss), so toss sat back defending until they were finally allowed to move out around 15:00. From that point on, terran just died unless they could hold on to the super late game, with mass CC's, mass ghost/medivac/viking, because tempests didn't exist so toss had no way to pick away at terran from there. So that matchup quickly became a lot of turtling and massing to deathball. Parting made it fresh for a while until players figured out how to deal with storm flanks.
PvP sucked ass then, it's much better now. PvZ sucked ass then, it's much better now. ZvT sucked ass then, it's much better now.
So yeah, I get it, you don't like protoss, but guess what: others do.
Every single matchup in the game is better now then it was in WoL.
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?
David Kim wrote: The first question in our minds don't matter as much at this point.
What a completely ignorant and idiotic statement.
So you spent months designing something (intending Swarmhosts to give Zerg an aggressive option mid-game) and it is used exactly in the opposite way that you intended (allowing Zergs to turtle in the mid and late game) causing a major game play issue, and it "don't matter"?
It does matter. Your design failed. Miserably. Hold yourself accountable. Say you learned from the mistake. Don't dismiss it as a non-issue. And what about the problem of Zergs not having aggressive options mid game to finish off opponents? Does that not matter anymore now?
Don't you understand David? You set out to fix a problem, failed, and now say the problem doesn't matter? Well then why did you try to fix it in the first place!? By ignoring his question, you're basically saying saying the initial problem didn't exist and that you have no plans to fix it.
This sums up the design team perfectly. They simply have no idea what they are doing. They try to "fix" an issue, fail, and then forget about fixing said problem, because they realize the issue actually wasn't a problem in the first place. And we are left the the "results" (ie Swarmhost) which they then try to somehow fit into the game. And often the "results" overlap with existing units, ie Tempests. Remember Tempests solving the non-existent Muta problem in WOL? Yeah, me too. Now Tempests are just a replacement for the Carrier, performing nearly the same role (long range capital ship). Frankly, I'm not sure what is worse: Blizzard's inability to identify real problems with the game, or their inability to implement in the game what they had planned to implement.
Either way, it is really laughable how brain-dead that comment is. David, you really know how to spew the political bullshit. Too bad you aren't as good at designing units that actually perform the role you intend them to.
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?
"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."
Although oracles are being defended better, I think it is also limiting terran builds since terrans HAVE to make sure they have 6 marines in their minerals unless until they scout the tech which means no early pressure. And I think protoss has figured out that blink can just put as much pressure as oracles and transitions easier so you see more blink builds compare to oracles.
As for medivacs, it was mainly the medivacs + hellbat drop that were hard to defend, so since hellbats were nerfed, so has the drop potential. Although drops can still do damage, they are much less devastating.
Yes, sometimes it is the meta shifting, but sometimes even when there are ways to defend the unit, the fact that a specific defense is required makes other builds more threatening.
On February 06 2014 07:39 GuiBz wrote: David Kim, try to make the game more skilled. The protoss macro is just too easy. They can spend their extra gas by wraping HTs and their extra minerals by wraping zealots. The terran player cannot spend his extra gas in late game.
If the Terran's aren't spending their extra gas, maybe they should not take as many geysers then? You see zerg's all the time pulling workers off gas to accrue minerals, or just having expansions that are purely for gas mining. Terran's are probably the least creative players right now, because they feel like everything is either already been figured out, or just aren't trying new things because it's been deemed "not good in this matchup".
Are you serious? Not take all geysers in TvP? Do you play this game at all? What kind of TvP do you wanna play?
lol i got really sad at his answers regarding force field and warpgates. He seem to insist that something is cool and should stay in the game when it seems like the general community playing the game are not enjoying them at all
On February 06 2014 14:07 TimENT wrote: DK just has a completely different mindset for the game's future. A far more shittier and more death-bally future. I lost complete faith in blizz when they ruined SC2 with that queen patch.
BL-infestor was already a problem before the queen patch. Every matchup besides maybe pre-queen patch TvZ was worse in WoL.
Yeah...no. Pre-queen patch TvZ was incredible back then. TvT was incredible back then (still equally as good). TvP was good back then because T could actually threaten P before the 2000 minute mark. PvP ended before 10 minutes (thank god, all P matchups blow). PvZ sucked and always will suck.
MAINLY...ZvZ was fucking intense. Baneling wars were fun. This massing bullshit I see now is just awful. Sigh. Blizz you really killed this game. So much potential.
I'll always remember you, 2011 SC2.
I think nostalgia is speaking.
Pre queen patch most TvZs were hellions killing zerg or zerg holding hellions handedly and winning from there. The games where it wasn't that, it was terran going hellion into 3 CC with no threat at all and zerg falling behind then dying later. Broodlord infestor wasn't an issue because zerg couldn't get there most of the time: midgame centric plays like ling/bling/muta were common. The matchup wasn't that great, hellions were way too good. The queen patch made zerg too strong defensively, so then they could rush 3 bases then straight to broodlord/infestor with only a short midgame, which accentuated the problem.
TvP wasn't all that good back then either: terran was the only one that could be aggressive at all (apart from some minor all-ins from toss), so toss sat back defending until they were finally allowed to move out around 15:00. From that point on, terran just died unless they could hold on to the super late game, with mass CC's, mass ghost/medivac/viking, because tempests didn't exist so toss had no way to pick away at terran from there. So that matchup quickly became a lot of turtling and massing to deathball. Parting made it fresh for a while until players figured out how to deal with storm flanks.
PvP sucked ass then, it's much better now. PvZ sucked ass then, it's much better now. ZvT sucked ass then, it's much better now.
So yeah, I get it, you don't like protoss, but guess what: others do.
Every single matchup in the game is better now then it was in WoL.
I don't agree with your TvP analysis. In WoL, the early game had P applying pressure or all-in that weren't minor (immortal busts, blink all-in, zealot archon busts) and T dominated mid game once medivacs and stim was out until Protoss got enough AoEs were out and they dominated late game, until super late with mass CCs.
With TvP now, Protoss have the early/ early mid game with pressures/all-ins and whether transitioned smoothly, the mid game window for T is almost none existent before AoE is out.
So while WoL TvP had different power spikes for both T and P, Ts only get a minor power spike now.
Thank you Daivd Kim for addressing the issue that, like the medivac buff in HoTs, Oracle's have the same buff type, this will keep some terran/zerg whiners off
Sad that I missed this. I would've really liked to see him adress the TvP early game and how there's so few options for terrans until ~10 minutes, when protoss has a gazillion of builds. While I believe it to be balanced, it's not just as fun as it could be
On February 06 2014 14:07 TimENT wrote: DK just has a completely different mindset for the game's future. A far more shittier and more death-bally future. I lost complete faith in blizz when they ruined SC2 with that queen patch.
BL-infestor was already a problem before the queen patch. Every matchup besides maybe pre-queen patch TvZ was worse in WoL.
Yeah...no. Pre-queen patch TvZ was incredible back then. TvT was incredible back then (still equally as good). TvP was good back then because T could actually threaten P before the 2000 minute mark. PvP ended before 10 minutes (thank god, all P matchups blow). PvZ sucked and always will suck.
MAINLY...ZvZ was fucking intense. Baneling wars were fun. This massing bullshit I see now is just awful. Sigh. Blizz you really killed this game. So much potential.
I'll always remember you, 2011 SC2.
I think nostalgia is speaking.
Pre queen patch most TvZs were hellions killing zerg or zerg holding hellions handedly and winning from there. The games where it wasn't that, it was terran going hellion into 3 CC with no threat at all and zerg falling behind then dying later. Broodlord infestor wasn't an issue because zerg couldn't get there most of the time: midgame centric plays like ling/bling/muta were common. The matchup wasn't that great, hellions were way too good. The queen patch made zerg too strong defensively, so then they could rush 3 bases then straight to broodlord/infestor with only a short midgame, which accentuated the problem.
TvP wasn't all that good back then either: terran was the only one that could be aggressive at all (apart from some minor all-ins from toss), so toss sat back defending until they were finally allowed to move out around 15:00. From that point on, terran just died unless they could hold on to the super late game, with mass CC's, mass ghost/medivac/viking, because tempests didn't exist so toss had no way to pick away at terran from there. So that matchup quickly became a lot of turtling and massing to deathball. Parting made it fresh for a while until players figured out how to deal with storm flanks.
PvP sucked ass then, it's much better now. PvZ sucked ass then, it's much better now. ZvT sucked ass then, it's much better now.
So yeah, I get it, you don't like protoss, but guess what: others do.
Every single matchup in the game is better now then it was in WoL.
Eh I agree with you on PvZ, it's way better in HotS then it is in WoL, by farrrr. Roach/hydra/queen infestor compositions are so much fun and more skill intensive. Timings still make it kind of lame, but once you learn to defend them then the match-up is at an all time high. Except for when swarmhost play dominates the late game; I think that's pretty boring.
However, with the tempest patch I really do think Zerg's are going to find it too dificult to swarmhost turtle when you can't rely on spores. So that style will fade out.
However ZvT pre-queen patch was bangin'. Not that current TvZ isn't fun as well, but tank TvZ is just so much fun to watch.
On February 06 2014 07:39 GuiBz wrote: David Kim, try to make the game more skilled. The protoss macro is just too easy. They can spend their extra gas by wraping HTs and their extra minerals by wraping zealots. The terran player cannot spend his extra gas in late game.
If the Terran's aren't spending their extra gas, maybe they should not take as many geysers then? You see zerg's all the time pulling workers off gas to accrue minerals, or just having expansions that are purely for gas mining. Terran's are probably the least creative players right now, because they feel like everything is either already been figured out, or just aren't trying new things because it's been deemed "not good in this matchup". That has nothing to do with WarpGate at all.
Because the Terran still need gas for upgrades and infrastructure, the gas issue is when they are 3/3 and they have all the infrastructure they need, by then, their minerals lines are already saturated and pull SCVs from gas won't help much. This has to do with the rigid terran production infrastructure as well as the mineral/gas distrubition of terran units (mainly ghosts).
How are terran less creative? They have always played mech in TvT and with the mech upgrades, we are seeing more mech ZvT. The only match up we don't see mech much is PvT, and it isn't because of creativity, it is because it just isn't that good vP. It is like saying protoss players aren't creative because EVERY protoss makes a MsC. They do it because it is good and they can't be competitive without it. Remember that these pros are playing for their careers, they will try everything they can to win.
i have love/hate feelings with david kim's thought process.
i don't really like how he's designing this game, but at the same time the craziness has led to some of my favorite times in game, and some of the most exciting games to watch.
i really think he needs to take some extra time to address some of the things he seems to blow off, like PvT imbalances, or the deathball concept.
imagine this game with less death ball....terran is almost there imo (with the exception of boring mech play)...i see terrans systematically pick apart players with drops and splitting armies...that's why TvZ is my favorite matchup to watch. it isn't about a deathball, it's about multi tasking and picking eachother apart. the final battle will have a ton of units, but that's not usually the deciding factor in the game.
anything vs protoss is deathball because the entire way protoss is designed is to be a deathball...the only way to defend or beat a deathball army is to...well deathball.
i really hate how he designed protoss and i hope he continues to work on it. love what he's been doing with terran though. easily the most exciting race to watch. they can literally utilize almost every unit effectively at some point in the game. zerg? not really. i play zerg, and it's the same units in almost every matchup. i want to feel more free and open when i play a game, not stuck on one strat until i'm so skilled i can beat almost every player with weird strats like nydus worms and such (which i was doing when i was a top master in beta).
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.
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.
I think this misses the entire issue of Zerg anti air. The problem is 20 void rays or 10 carriers...etc. When the numbers get any way high its impossible to trade evenly even if you know what they are doing. And the micro and macro needed to defeat that as Zerg is a lot higher than the protoss in that situation. BCs and ravens specifically aren't even a problem in a way when you compare it to protoss. Void rays are the counter to pretty much everything Zerg has that is "good" against air. And then they suggest nerfing static defenses by making tempest better vs them. They are looking into swarm hosts hard but the problem in the game in ZvP isn't anything even remotely to do with them. There would be not as much swarm host play if there wasn't mass turtle air strategies from the protoss. If I see a protoss going 3+ stargate on 3 base there is nothing I can do but sit back. If I attack into them I lose. That is just the way the game works.
pretty much the answers I expected and definitely can understand as well. as long as a game is interesting and action packed, even "deathball" can be interesting such as ZvT, where zerg max in ling baneling muta and eventually adds in infestors ultras broodlords vipers etc. The only time when deathball is boring is when is requires very little micro and more on the firepower, such as infestor broodlords.
many people hate on protoss design but imo, it is the only race that really allows different style of players to perform well. Parting comparing to rain for example. storm drop in tvp is one of the coolest strategy in sc2
I feel weird when it comes to David Kim's thought about balance.
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.
I find completely wrong the fact that he finds that armies that ball and evaporates are better than long term engagement, more spread out on the map. Matter of taste, but I feel his answer isn't completely right, as the opposite of "Deathball play" isn't "players sitting back and massing up their composition". In fact, this is more a characteristic of deathball play than long term engagements/spread out armies... :/
I find reasonable most of what he says, but only because I respect that he enjoys/considers the game differently and that's a matter of taste. But the problem is that many people seem to enjoy the game differently, and as he's the guy who has the last word about this, this is sometimes a problem I think.
Finishing on a positive note, I appreciate his stance on "capital units", as I too think they should not be part of every game, though they should be more viable (I mean, the carrier isn't part of any game quite literally....). I also like that he still appear very prudent with the changes, which is a good thing (and he shows that very well with his example about the boost on the medivac, considered OP at HotS release, completely accepted now, without any change about it).
Protoss to remain the deathball race then, shit Tanks are good for SC2, and probably expect minor changes from LOTV.
TBF though, it's nice to know that what many would consider design problems or poor balancing, is actually the designers vision implemented to a point. They are not incompetent, they just want different things.
The sad part is that all the feedback explaining why a better eco or micro or no WG or etc would be good for the game was a total waste of time.
On February 06 2014 17:42 Sapphire.lux wrote: Protoss to remain the deathball race then, shit Tanks are good for SC2, and probably expect minor changes from LOTV.
TBF though, it's nice to know that what many would consider design problems or poor balancing, is actually the designers vision implemented to a point. They are not incompetent, they just want different things.
The sad part is that all the feedback explaining why a better eco or micro or no WG or etc would be good for the game was a total waste of time.
Well, you said it. They don't feel it'd be good, it's not in their vision. :/
On February 06 2014 07:45 Nimix wrote: He avoided answering the first question with a politician's professionalism. At the end you couldn't recall what the guy asked
Exactly. As usual he is more focusing on dodging the questions than answering them precise.
On February 06 2014 14:07 TimENT wrote: DK just has a completely different mindset for the game's future. A far more shittier and more death-bally future. I lost complete faith in blizz when they ruined SC2 with that queen patch.
BL-infestor was already a problem before the queen patch. Every matchup besides maybe pre-queen patch TvZ was worse in WoL.
Yeah...no. Pre-queen patch TvZ was incredible back then. TvT was incredible back then (still equally as good). TvP was good back then because T could actually threaten P before the 2000 minute mark. PvP ended before 10 minutes (thank god, all P matchups blow). PvZ sucked and always will suck.
MAINLY...ZvZ was fucking intense. Baneling wars were fun. This massing bullshit I see now is just awful. Sigh. Blizz you really killed this game. So much potential.
I'll always remember you, 2011 SC2.
I think nostalgia is speaking.
Pre queen patch most TvZs were hellions killing zerg or zerg holding hellions handedly and winning from there. The games where it wasn't that, it was terran going hellion into 3 CC with no threat at all and zerg falling behind then dying later. Broodlord infestor wasn't an issue because zerg couldn't get there most of the time: midgame centric plays like ling/bling/muta were common. The matchup wasn't that great, hellions were way too good. The queen patch made zerg too strong defensively, so then they could rush 3 bases then straight to broodlord/infestor with only a short midgame, which accentuated the problem.
TvP wasn't all that good back then either: terran was the only one that could be aggressive at all (apart from some minor all-ins from toss), so toss sat back defending until they were finally allowed to move out around 15:00. From that point on, terran just died unless they could hold on to the super late game, with mass CC's, mass ghost/medivac/viking, because tempests didn't exist so toss had no way to pick away at terran from there. So that matchup quickly became a lot of turtling and massing to deathball. Parting made it fresh for a while until players figured out how to deal with storm flanks.
PvP sucked ass then, it's much better now. PvZ sucked ass then, it's much better now. ZvT sucked ass then, it's much better now.
So yeah, I get it, you don't like protoss, but guess what: others do.
Every single matchup in the game is better now then it was in WoL.
TvT back then was much better than now. Now its just 111 into mech all the time and it sucks.
On February 06 2014 14:07 TimENT wrote: DK just has a completely different mindset for the game's future. A far more shittier and more death-bally future. I lost complete faith in blizz when they ruined SC2 with that queen patch.
BL-infestor was already a problem before the queen patch. Every matchup besides maybe pre-queen patch TvZ was worse in WoL.
Yeah...no. Pre-queen patch TvZ was incredible back then. TvT was incredible back then (still equally as good). TvP was good back then because T could actually threaten P before the 2000 minute mark. PvP ended before 10 minutes (thank god, all P matchups blow). PvZ sucked and always will suck.
MAINLY...ZvZ was fucking intense. Baneling wars were fun. This massing bullshit I see now is just awful. Sigh. Blizz you really killed this game. So much potential.
I'll always remember you, 2011 SC2.
I think nostalgia is speaking.
Pre queen patch most TvZs were hellions killing zerg or zerg holding hellions handedly and winning from there. The games where it wasn't that, it was terran going hellion into 3 CC with no threat at all and zerg falling behind then dying later. Broodlord infestor wasn't an issue because zerg couldn't get there most of the time: midgame centric plays like ling/bling/muta were common. The matchup wasn't that great, hellions were way too good. The queen patch made zerg too strong defensively, so then they could rush 3 bases then straight to broodlord/infestor with only a short midgame, which accentuated the problem.
TvP wasn't all that good back then either: terran was the only one that could be aggressive at all (apart from some minor all-ins from toss), so toss sat back defending until they were finally allowed to move out around 15:00. From that point on, terran just died unless they could hold on to the super late game, with mass CC's, mass ghost/medivac/viking, because tempests didn't exist so toss had no way to pick away at terran from there. So that matchup quickly became a lot of turtling and massing to deathball. Parting made it fresh for a while until players figured out how to deal with storm flanks.
PvP sucked ass then, it's much better now. PvZ sucked ass then, it's much better now. ZvT sucked ass then, it's much better now.
So yeah, I get it, you don't like protoss, but guess what: others do.
Every single matchup in the game is better now then it was in WoL.
TvT back then was much better than now. Now its just 111 into mech all the time and it sucks.
Yeah I agree. Making mech dominate the matchup is a mistake. Mech vs mech as a matchup is enjoyable only when 2 among like 10 Terrans in the world are playing it. And it's certainly boring to play against turtle mech at lower level.
Wow; what a circle-jerk. I for one like the answers he gave. They seem to be fair & balanced answers and he seems to be aware of the questions that where raised. And I like he isn't trying to recreate Broodwar. I disliked that game.
Which brings me to the second thing I wanted to say: A lot of the pro's are ex-Broodwar. It is sort of understandable they will always like SC1. It's nostalgia; it's the game they grew up with. I have those same feelings for other games so I can sympathise. What annoys me is the sheer amount of people who never played Broodwar seriously yet claim it was the better game. I don't know why this is. Maybe you hear your favorite player say this. Maybe you think something is wrong and would like it to see fixed. If it's the first: please stop. If it's the second; great. However do realize Broodwar isn't some magic bullet with the perfect solution to anything. The solution might very well be something else. Instead of being toxic to David you can also try to offer solutions other then "bring broodwar back hurhur".
I'm very surprised at the negativity. I didn't think there were that many people that were that upset about the game's state. I think the game is in a OK spot, even though it could be better, like almost everything. I love the fact that they did this and find the answers entirely reasonable. Hopefully they'll do this again. I'm very intrigued by TvP Mech starting to crop up. Hopefully we can see some of that in televised games soon.
On February 06 2014 18:39 MaestroMaus wrote: Wow; what a circle-jerk. I for one like the answers he gave. They seem to be fair & balanced answers and he seems to be aware of the questions that where raised. And I like he isn't trying to recreate Broodwar. I disliked that game.
Which brings me to the second thing I wanted to say: A lot of the pro's are ex-Broodwar. It is sort of understandable they will always like SC1. It's nostalgia; it's the game they grew up with. I have those same feelings for other games so I can sympathise. What annoys me is the sheer amount of people who never played Broodwar seriously yet claim it was the better game. I don't know why this is. Maybe you hear your favorite player say this. Maybe you think something is wrong and would like it to see fixed. If it's the first: please stop. If it's the second; great. However do realize Broodwar isn't some magic bullet with the perfect solution to anything. The solution might very well be something else. Instead of being toxic to David you can also try to offer solutions other then "bring broodwar back hurhur".
Lets turn it the other way around. You most likely never played bw seriously and yet claim it sucks?
On February 06 2014 18:39 MaestroMaus wrote: Wow; what a circle-jerk. I for one like the answers he gave. They seem to be fair & balanced answers and he seems to be aware of the questions that where raised. And I like he isn't trying to recreate Broodwar. I disliked that game.
Which brings me to the second thing I wanted to say: A lot of the pro's are ex-Broodwar. It is sort of understandable they will always like SC1. It's nostalgia; it's the game they grew up with. I have those same feelings for other games so I can sympathise. What annoys me is the sheer amount of people who never played Broodwar seriously yet claim it was the better game. I don't know why this is. Maybe you hear your favorite player say this. Maybe you think something is wrong and would like it to see fixed. If it's the first: please stop. If it's the second; great. However do realize Broodwar isn't some magic bullet with the perfect solution to anything. The solution might very well be something else. Instead of being toxic to David you can also try to offer solutions other then "bring broodwar back hurhur".
Lets turn it the other way around. You most likely never played bw seriously and yet claim it sucks?
I think even implying that BW was not the best RTS of its time is anything but insane but I would also say that when people say that they hate how the AI is infinitely improved and stuff does what you tell it to without you having to basically force the issue is a massive improvement that I would not take lightly.
Now with all the AI and quality of life improvements if you had added those to BW would it have made it better then SC2? I do not know and I do not have the ability or chance to know but I do sort of wish I could because it would be fun to try but since I don't I have to live with what I have warts and all.
Surprised by the negativity, may not agree with everything but I think it is great that the developers are taking a moment to talk to us. Sometimes it feels like people forget that the developers have no hidden agenda against their own game and are only doing their best to improve an already decent game. So from me, thank you David.
On Broodwar...to be honest patch 1.3 of StarCraft was better than Broodwar. 1.2 was stupid due to how overpowered stacked air units were (wraiths and scouts) and broodwar provided too many hard counters (lurkers, devourers, corsair, valkeries) that made the game less fun IMO.
So Broodwar wasn't even as good as vanilla StarCraft ;P
However, HotS is definitely an improvement on WoL and I think LotV has a chance to finish the game. Its a great game and reasonably balanced on most ladder maps for most matchups. And its fun to play with friends.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a big swing in race balance before LotV comes out either. WoL had ups and downs off very minor balance tweaks.
On February 06 2014 18:39 MaestroMaus wrote: Wow; what a circle-jerk. I for one like the answers he gave. They seem to be fair & balanced answers and he seems to be aware of the questions that where raised. And I like he isn't trying to recreate Broodwar. I disliked that game.
Which brings me to the second thing I wanted to say: A lot of the pro's are ex-Broodwar. It is sort of understandable they will always like SC1. It's nostalgia; it's the game they grew up with. I have those same feelings for other games so I can sympathise. What annoys me is the sheer amount of people who never played Broodwar seriously yet claim it was the better game. I don't know why this is. Maybe you hear your favorite player say this. Maybe you think something is wrong and would like it to see fixed. If it's the first: please stop. If it's the second; great. However do realize Broodwar isn't some magic bullet with the perfect solution to anything. The solution might very well be something else. Instead of being toxic to David you can also try to offer solutions other then "bring broodwar back hurhur".
Lets turn it the other way around. You most likely never played bw seriously and yet claim it sucks?
Don't be silly. I didn't say Broodwar sucks. I said I didn't like it. And I said that you can't fix the problems of a modern game with te solutions of an older game that's different in a lot of ways (including technical ways). Don't put words into my mouth I haven't spoken.
Also; I don't need to "have played broodwar seriously" to make the statement that I didn't like it. It's subjective.
I did not like his answers, his answers just seem like he doesn't have passion or understanding of the game and what makes a game like this fun. I'm seriously questioning any hope for SCII to thrive with him unable to notice things like oracles and swarm hosts being fine in their current state. Seems like he is almost always on the defensive, and I really can't see where he is coming from because his logic behind everything is coming from what seems like a numbers perspective rather than game play.
On February 06 2014 19:24 Eliezar wrote: On Broodwar...to be honest patch 1.3 of StarCraft was better than Broodwar. 1.2 was stupid due to how overpowered stacked air units were (wraiths and scouts) and broodwar provided too many hard counters (lurkers, devourers, corsair, valkeries) that made the game less fun IMO.
So Broodwar wasn't even as good as vanilla StarCraft ;P
However, HotS is definitely an improvement on WoL and I think LotV has a chance to finish the game. Its a great game and reasonably balanced on most ladder maps for most matchups. And its fun to play with friends.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a big swing in race balance before LotV comes out either. WoL had ups and downs off very minor balance tweaks.
Totally agree! Hots has been a lot of fun and a massive improvement. Can't wait to see what they are going to do next.
I don't feel like the game is mostly good balance but honestly, i really feel like DK doesn't know what he's talking about. For example when he's talking about the Oracle and how people learn to defend it. It's not the fact that an Oracle can kill a whole eco line when the Terran has bad defense what's bothering me - It's the fact that a Protoss can go for a third base off an Oracle and the MSC, even if the Terran has a good defense, because Terran can't leave his base.
Also, I feel like the whole thing in the end was more or less for nothing because DK said a whole lot without really saying anything
On February 06 2014 19:51 dargul wrote: Lets poll and see if common players still trust Kim, or may be he is incompetent and must leave this game for god sake.
Poll: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
Yeh he is awsome. (29)
15%
He is slowpoke but ok. (23)
12%
He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (131)
66%
I don't care i play moba already. (17)
9%
200 total votes
Your vote: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
(Vote): Yeh he is awsome. (Vote): He is slowpoke but ok. (Vote): He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (Vote): I don't care i play moba already.
No answer suits me...
Mine would be "I don't think he's incompetent but he's got tastes that seem to be really different than those of many spectators/players".
Seems like the circlejerk is leaning towards hating on DK for these answers, but personally I think he never dodged a question and actually provided good reasoning for their decisions. This doesn't mean you have to agree with all of them, but there was nothing wrong with how this Q&A was approached.
I'm really curious if "There are korean pros who play mech on ladder" why Kim can't show us they reps or something how he sees mech play. It's better to show 1 time then tell us 100 times that mech is working in tvp
On February 06 2014 20:13 dargul wrote: I'm really curious if "There are korean pros who play mech on ladder" why Kim can't show us they reps or something how he sees mech play. It's better to show 1 time then tell us 100 times that mech is working in tvp
I'm pretty sure the korean pros practicing mech for their upcoming tournament matches don't want their strategies spoiled.
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!
On February 06 2014 20:13 dargul wrote: I'm really curious if "There are korean pros who play mech on ladder" why Kim can't show us they reps or something how he sees mech play. It's better to show 1 time then tell us 100 times that mech is working in tvp
I'm pretty sure the korean pros practicing mech for their upcoming tournament matches don't want their strategies spoiled.
all of them use lllllllll so ni1 will know who is playing. And again Kim is gml random - why he can't show us how you supposed to play as terran? show us how to punish protoss after failed allin or how EXACTLY ghost buff helps counter blink allin.
Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
If DK and DB somehow find their way into the Wc4 design team ( which will most likely happen ), I will go to USA and shoot them myself....Guantanamo here I come !
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
If DK and DB somehow find their way into the Wc4 design team ( which will most likely happen ), I will go to USA and shoot them myself....Guantanamo here I come !
But I agree with what you said.
Yea... This constitutes one of those hilarious "death threat" things that makes the internet so appealing.
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
If DK and DB somehow find their way into the Wc4 design team ( which will most likely happen ), I will go to USA and shoot them myself....Guantanamo here I come !
But I agree with what you said.
Yea... This constitutes one of those hilarious "death threat" things that makes the internet so appealing.
On February 06 2014 18:39 MaestroMaus wrote: Wow; what a circle-jerk. I for one like the answers he gave. They seem to be fair & balanced answers and he seems to be aware of the questions that where raised. And I like he isn't trying to recreate Broodwar. I disliked that game.
Which brings me to the second thing I wanted to say: A lot of the pro's are ex-Broodwar. It is sort of understandable they will always like SC1. It's nostalgia; it's the game they grew up with. I have those same feelings for other games so I can sympathise. What annoys me is the sheer amount of people who never played Broodwar seriously yet claim it was the better game. I don't know why this is. Maybe you hear your favorite player say this. Maybe you think something is wrong and would like it to see fixed. If it's the first: please stop. If it's the second; great. However do realize Broodwar isn't some magic bullet with the perfect solution to anything. The solution might very well be something else. Instead of being toxic to David you can also try to offer solutions other then "bring broodwar back hurhur".
Lets turn it the other way around. You most likely never played bw seriously and yet claim it sucks?
Don't be silly. I didn't say Broodwar sucks. I said I didn't like it. And I said that you can't fix the problems of a modern game with te solutions of an older game that's different in a lot of ways (including technical ways). Don't put words into my mouth I haven't spoken.
Also; I don't need to "have played broodwar seriously" to make the statement that I didn't like it. It's subjective.
You are silly, if you think that you cant learn from an "OLD" game. In fact you can learn alot from history (even from old games). A game being old doesnt mean it did everything wrong. In my oppinion it does alot better than most new games, although not every aspect. I know that scbw has some outdated stuff but it were all decisions made by the programers and designer (alot of guys think it wasnt possible to implement back then but thats wrong). Read the column of Patrick W. an old Blizzard employee: https://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/author/patrick-wyatt And now stop talking please, so i cant put words into your mouth again...
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
If DK and DB somehow find their way into the Wc4 design team ( which will most likely happen ), I will go to USA and shoot them myself....Guantanamo here I come !
But I agree with what you said.
Yea... This constitutes one of those hilarious "death threat" things that makes the internet so appealing.
Great job!
Dude its a fucking joke....chill XD
Joking about killing people. The only ones that can get away with that are comedians.
Honestly; they should just stop doing this kind of stuff since all it gets is more backlash.
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
If DK and DB somehow find their way into the Wc4 design team ( which will most likely happen ), I will go to USA and shoot them myself....Guantanamo here I come !
But I agree with what you said.
Yea... This constitutes one of those hilarious "death threat" things that makes the internet so appealing.
Great job!
Dude its a fucking joke....chill XD
I'm not excited. Given the context it can't be taken seriously. It's just the kind of thing that we see accompanied by a violin stab and darth vader announcer on your local television news network. But your local television news network doesn't have time for context. Fortunately I do. I didn't report you. Your comment isn't evil. It's just vacuous.
Warp Gate/Forcefields still never understood why they did not put any advantages in just using the gateway. There is literally no reason to use the gateway.
Protoss Strength in PvT Cop out answer.
Strength of Tanks More cop out.
The rest of the answers were kinda meh. :\ not impressed by blizz .. the only time i was impressed with blizzard was the spore crawler change that was so smart.
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
If DK and DB somehow find their way into the Wc4 design team ( which will most likely happen ), I will go to USA and shoot them myself....Guantanamo here I come !
But I agree with what you said.
Yea... This constitutes one of those hilarious "death threat" things that makes the internet so appealing.
Great job!
Dude its a fucking joke....chill XD
There is a lol player who made similar remarks on his FB account, obviously with a "j/k lol" (because well... it was a fucking joke) and some random person called the police and he ended up in jail (i belive his 16-17) because neither the random person, the police or the judge saw it as a mere joke...
what i am saying: be very careful with jokes like that so it won't end up ruining your life :/
(And yes it is stupid that something like that can happen, or than anyone take it seriously, but that's the world we live in)
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
If DK and DB somehow find their way into the Wc4 design team ( which will most likely happen ), I will go to USA and shoot them myself....Guantanamo here I come !
But I agree with what you said.
Yea... This constitutes one of those hilarious "death threat" things that makes the internet so appealing.
Great job!
Dude its a fucking joke....chill XD
There is a lol player who made similar remarks on his FB account, obviously with a "j/k lol" (because well... it was a fucking joke) and some random person called the police and he ended up in jail (i belive his 16-17) because neither the random person, the police or the judge saw it as a mere joke...
what i am saying: be very careful with jokes like that so it won't end up ruining your life :/
(And yes it is stupid that something like that can happen, or than anyone take it seriously, but that's the world we live in)
Threats made in writing against specific people are generally considered to be bad because no one can tell if someone meant it or not. The people concerned with this stuff don't have the liberty of assuming its in jest. However, since TL doesn't have personal information, it is very unlikely.
On February 06 2014 19:51 dargul wrote: Lets poll and see if common players still trust Kim, or may be he is incompetent and must leave this game for god sake.
Poll: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
Yeh he is awsome. (29)
15%
He is slowpoke but ok. (23)
12%
He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (131)
66%
I don't care i play moba already. (17)
9%
200 total votes
Your vote: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
(Vote): Yeh he is awsome. (Vote): He is slowpoke but ok. (Vote): He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (Vote): I don't care i play moba already.
So for now 12(33%) think that Kim is ok and 24(66%) that he must leave. I hope that kim or his boss is reading this...
Joking about killing people. The only ones that can get away with that are comedians.
Honestly; they should just stop doing this kind of stuff since all it gets is more backlash
I'm not excited. Given the context it can't be taken seriously. It's just the kind of thing that we see accompanied by a violin stab and darth vader announcer on your local television news network. But your local television news network doesn't have time for context. Fortunately I do. I didn't report you. Your comment isn't evil. It's just vacuous.
There is a lol player who made similar remarks on his FB account, obviously with a "j/k lol" (because well... it was a fucking joke) and some random person called the police and he ended up in jail (i belive his 16-17) because neither the random person, the police or the judge saw it as a mere joke...
what i am saying: be very careful with jokes like that so it won't end up ruining your life :/
(And yes it is stupid that something like that can happen, or than anyone take it seriously, but that's the world we live in)
No fucking comment , next time I'll add a disclaimer for all you western people.
His answers say he doesn't want sc2 to be as good as BW since the advantages people are suggesting about BW he is saying: we talked about it and said we don't want to change it.
On February 06 2014 19:51 dargul wrote: Lets poll and see if common players still trust Kim, or may be he is incompetent and must leave this game for god sake.
Poll: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
Yeh he is awsome. (29)
15%
He is slowpoke but ok. (23)
12%
He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (131)
66%
I don't care i play moba already. (17)
9%
200 total votes
Your vote: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
(Vote): Yeh he is awsome. (Vote): He is slowpoke but ok. (Vote): He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (Vote): I don't care i play moba already.
So for now 12(33%) think that Kim is ok and 24(66%) that he must leave. I hope that kim or his boss is reading this...
36 out of half a million players for sure is a representative sample size!
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
If DK and DB somehow find their way into the Wc4 design team ( which will most likely happen ), I will go to USA and shoot them myself....Guantanamo here I come !
But I agree with what you said.
Not touching a game of theirs and/or Blizzard's is more than enough.
On February 06 2014 19:51 dargul wrote: Lets poll and see if common players still trust Kim, or may be he is incompetent and must leave this game for god sake.
So for now 12(33%) think that Kim is ok and 24(66%) that he must leave. I hope that kim or his boss is reading this...
36 out of half a million players for sure is a representative sample size!
Yet even smaller sample size(1 week of proleague) was enough for him to say that TvP is ok couple weeks ago.
And yes where have you found 1million players? in wol may be check sc2ranks there are only ~400000 players. And it counting euro and am accs as separate people so in fact it is very likely that player base is aobut 200k...
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 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.
Pardo looked around the room and saw the likes of Dustin Browder and David Kim. I wouldn't buy a game that had their names in the credits let alone be forced to work with such incompetance day in and day out.
This is just another PR stunt from Dayvie. I don't understand how people can still defend this guy. SC2 is in a worse state than in Broodlord-Infestor era. One failed balance patch after another...Complete lack of understanding of the game mechanics etc..Some people never learn..
On February 06 2014 21:41 n0ise wrote: Great insights from DK, as usual
If +25 Energy on Time Warp doesn't help hold 2-Base Blink, I really don't know what will. It's like the Terrans aren't even trying these days.
.......
The +25 energy doesn't change anything for 2 Base blink because there is only 1 needed.
The most reasonable (and most suggested) change is to lower the vision range of the MSC and to change the maps because a big reason why blink opening are so popular TvP is that at least half of the current WCS maps are very blink friendly.
And again, I have to post this same question to the community. If we are so unhappy with David Kim and Dustin Browder's way of handling the game, if each and every one of their patch changes screams incompetence, and if so many of their interviews they are more concerned with their PR, instead of the state of the game, then why don't we do something about it?
I've said this once, why don't we all file a formal complaint on Blizzard's websites against them, they must have some department like customer support, quality assurance, I don't know, something that will pick up the complaints and send them higher up. I for one am at the end of my patience with the SC2 design team, and I think its high time that a real change occurs.
On February 06 2014 21:41 n0ise wrote: Great insights from DK, as usual
If +25 Energy on Time Warp doesn't help hold 2-Base Blink, I really don't know what will. It's like the Terrans aren't even trying these days.
You realize Time Warp at 100 energy changes absolutely nothing in like 99.5% of the situations? The strength of 2-bases Blink isn't even only related to the actual strength of the attack...
On February 06 2014 21:41 n0ise wrote: Great insights from DK, as usual
If +25 Energy on Time Warp doesn't help hold 2-Base Blink, I really don't know what will. It's like the Terrans aren't even trying these days.
If pro-gamers themselves can't win vs Protoss (which is what we're seeing in GSL), you can't say shit like that. Pro-gamers are quite the try-hards. Edit: Seems like it could be sarcasm, but I mean, I don't know if you're Protoss or Terran :D
On February 06 2014 21:58 Destructicon wrote: And again, I have to post this same question to the community. If we are so unhappy with David Kim and Dustin Browder's way of handling the game, if each and every one of their patch changes screams incompetence, and if so many of their interviews they are more concerned with their PR, instead of the state of the game, then why don't we do something about it?
I've said this once, why don't we all file a formal complaint on Blizzard's websites against them, they must have some department like customer support, quality assurance, I don't know, something that will pick up the complaints and send them higher up. I for one am at the end of my patience with the SC2 design team, and I think its high time that a real change occurs.
Because customers are stupid. If you fire every designer if somebody on the internet is complaining about their game we wouldn´t have any game made since 1990. Also most companies give a shit about what people are thinking as long as they are selling their products. Look at Exxon, Monsantu or JP Morgan. The only way to "tell" them in a way they understand is by not buying their products.
Also you have to understand this guys they were spending the last (idk) 5+ years on this thing every day, for sure often more than 12+ hours. Everyone would defend the product in their position.
Only question needed to be asked was : When will you fix TvP ? Does it even matter?....no answer would be given.
However this is a step up from ignoring the community,at least he showed up and took some questions. He should really done that Q&A thing here on TL because more people follow SC2 stuff here than on blizzard forums.
Personally game is ruined for me as a viewer.I cannot watch PvP and PvZ for 3 months. As player i dont even bother playing vs P in straight up game,i just cheese....
If something isnt done quick SC2 will loose viewers and players and that would be such a shame. I just hope its not too late.
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
If DK and DB somehow find their way into the Wc4 design team ( which will most likely happen ), I will go to USA and shoot them myself....Guantanamo here I come !
But I agree with what you said.
User was warned for this post
A warning for a death threat? So what is actually needed to get banned? I am greatly disapointed in the Team liquid forum Moderators... Keeping the forum clean is your jobs guys... DO IT PROPERLY! This is a "DEATH THREAT"! You can't just say oh it was a joke? You have to draw the line somewhere? Please explain to me where is your line drawn?
On February 06 2014 22:32 Liman wrote: Only question needed to be asked was : When will you fix TvP ? Does it even matter?....no answer would be given.
However this is a step up from ignoring the community,at least he showed up and took some questions. He should really done that Q&A thing here on TL because more people follow SC2 stuff here than on blizzard forums.
Personally game is ruined for me as a viewer.I cannot watch PvP and PvZ for 3 months. As player i dont even bother playing vs P in straight up game,i just cheese....
If something isnt done quick SC2 will loose viewers and players and that would be such a shame. I just hope its not too late.
It would be MUCH better if kim streamed his games on ladder for example playing the weakest race to show that it's not true and searching for ways to overcome weaknesses. And give answers on some questions at the end of the stream.
Then people will see that he really good player and probably understand what he is doing with balance. Because now kim looks like "smart guy" sitting in blizzard doing nothing and getting paid for random changes which don't change balance at all.
if sc2 balance team of sc2 will keep this kind of handling of the game .. i have no doubt that starbow will be like dota in wc3 .. more popular than the game itself ..
too bad its going in this direction .. i don't even watch sc2 that is not tvz or tvt anymore .. i rarely watch tvp with the cases of my favorite players playing flash/maru .. last year i would watch every single game if it was possible that was casted nowadays i just watch dota 2 if its not those 2 match ups..
PvP is just boring. PvZ is now pretty lame. TvP is disappointing.
I just hope they don't continue responding too long or too quick in balance issues or sc2 will fade.
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
If DK and DB somehow find their way into the Wc4 design team ( which will most likely happen ), I will go to USA and shoot them myself....Guantanamo here I come !
But I agree with what you said.
User was warned for this post
A warning for a death threat? So what is actually needed to get banned? I am greatly disapointed in the Team liquid forum Moderators... Keeping the forum clean is your jobs guys... DO IT PROPERLY! This is a "DEATH THREAT"! You can't just say oh it was a joke? You have to draw the line somewhere? Please explain to me where is your line drawn?
You grab the pitchfork, I'll continue to scan the thread about what David Kim said for people talking about what David Kim said.
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
If DK and DB somehow find their way into the Wc4 design team ( which will most likely happen ), I will go to USA and shoot them myself....Guantanamo here I come !
But I agree with what you said.
User was warned for this post
A warning for a death threat? So what is actually needed to get banned? I am greatly disapointed in the Team liquid forum Moderators... Keeping the forum clean is your jobs guys... DO IT PROPERLY! This is a "DEATH THREAT"! You can't just say oh it was a joke? You have to draw the line somewhere? Please explain to me where is your line drawn?
The line was drawn when I clearly said it was a joke in the next post , and I added another comment saying next time I will add a disclaimer for westerners who actually take this seriously.
By the way it's clearly a joke since I mentioned Guantanamo.
Move on and get back to the balance discussion , to be fair it was my bad , I should've taken the time to write a disclaimer for the idiots.
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
If DK and DB somehow find their way into the Wc4 design team ( which will most likely happen ), I will go to USA and shoot them myself....Guantanamo here I come !
But I agree with what you said.
User was warned for this post
A warning for a death threat? So what is actually needed to get banned? I am greatly disapointed in the Team liquid forum Moderators... Keeping the forum clean is your jobs guys... DO IT PROPERLY! This is a "DEATH THREAT"! You can't just say oh it was a joke? You have to draw the line somewhere? Please explain to me where is your line drawn?
I just Facepalmed so hard reading this I almost killed myself.
On February 06 2014 21:52 MysticaL wrote: so the tl;dr is: David Kim dodging real questions with typical politically correct answers
I don't get the point of this. Has Blizzard become a company of red tape rather than a developer at the forefront? SC2 is a shadow of a game compared to BW and everyone including Blizzard know that so............. I don't see what the point is of pretending otherwise.
On February 06 2014 22:32 Liman wrote: Only question needed to be asked was : When will you fix TvP ? Does it even matter?....no answer would be given.
However this is a step up from ignoring the community,at least he showed up and took some questions. He should really done that Q&A thing here on TL because more people follow SC2 stuff here than on blizzard forums.
Personally game is ruined for me as a viewer.I cannot watch PvP and PvZ for 3 months. As player i dont even bother playing vs P in straight up game,i just cheese....
If something isnt done quick SC2 will loose viewers and players and that would be such a shame. I just hope its not too late.
It would be MUCH better if kim streamed his games on ladder for example playing the weakest race to show that it's not true and searching for ways to overcome weaknesses. And give answers on some questions at the end of the stream.
Then people will see that he really good player and probably understand what he is doing with balance. Because now kim looks like "smart guy" sitting in blizzard doing nothing and getting paid for random changes which don't change balance at all.
I think that's actually a good idea, at least in theory. It is easy to forget that before becoming a "balance bureaucrat", DK was an accomplished player with an excellent level of play. He's no Polt, but he sure can hold his own in GM I believe.
I say "in theory", because with the current state of the SC2 community (especially the TL community and its member, who are more likely to watch such a stream), the chat would quickly degenerate into ugliness. I think Blizzard should be considering it nonetheless though.
But the bottom line remains: a lot of players, pros included (Scarlet, IdrA, etc.), seem to be falling out of love with SC2. I don't play anymore, and I was never any good, my true passion was WC3, but I watch SC2 from time to time and from a spectator's point of view, I can say I don't enjoy watching the game. It lacks action, and the fights are too anticlimactic (read: long build up, long macro sessions, very short fight at hand). One could pin that on a simple incompatibility between my taste and the game, but as many people seem to share the same feelings...
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.
On February 06 2014 19:51 dargul wrote: Lets poll and see if common players still trust Kim, or may be he is incompetent and must leave this game for god sake.
Poll: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
Yeh he is awsome. (29)
15%
He is slowpoke but ok. (23)
12%
He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (131)
66%
I don't care i play moba already. (17)
9%
200 total votes
Your vote: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
(Vote): Yeh he is awsome. (Vote): He is slowpoke but ok. (Vote): He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (Vote): I don't care i play moba already.
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
Not really, WC3 and BW were different, but I preferred both of them to SC2, especially SC2 in its current state
I wish people would stop devaluing the opinion of others by attributing it to nostalgia all the time, damn irritating.
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.
On February 06 2014 07:20 Pandain wrote: Questions Answered by Topic (relevant parts bolded): Other Compilation by Date
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?
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.
Both questions remain unanswered. WHY? No answer, but an explanation of what a deathball game is. Has he thought about changing it? No - They don't want to get rid of "mass army vs. mass army" (aka Deathballs), but want some more harassment, and we all know what that brings us (ORACLES 0.0!!)
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?
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.
Forcefield and Warpgate make Protoss deathbally. Answer: It's racedefining ?! 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.
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.
How to make Capital Ships useful? We've "learned" (when!?!?!) capital ships are rare and lose their cool if they are build every game. What kind of answer is that?! Hey guys, there's this unit we put in the game, but is unusable because if it was usable that wouldn't be cool...?! See the flaw in logic? Nor does he reply to 'plans', he says there's 'discussion' and nothing will happen before LOTV.
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.
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.
First part of the question is decently answered. WHEN isn't answered by "we need to test first", but at least the plans are laid out. 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.
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.
This compares well to the Tempest buff they want to do. Mass Raven is a problem because it allows Terran to turtle all game (FYI, Terran turtles TO GET the Raven, not to allow them to turtle -,-). Again they are considering a nerf to the only unit that can handle Swarm Hosts. Ravens and Tempest are not the problem -> Swarm Hosts and Zergs AA are!
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)
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.
Again, Raven/BC turtle is only a problem because the Swarm Host negates ground play. Nerfing Raven/BC makes Mech auto-lose against Swarm Hosts. Nerf Hosts Buff Zerg AA, fixes 2 matchups OMG David! It can be that easy :-) 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.
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.
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?
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.
The fix to Blink All Ins is Mobius Reactor removal...?!?! :confused: 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.
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.
This is silly too > Oracles see less use because Terrans adapted their builds to have 6 Marines in a mineral line at the Oracle timing. It has nothing to do with terran figuring out how to defend, it limits Terran in tech and economy early in the game just by the sheer threat of it. This is also why BCs are never used - The threat of Tempests shuts them out. 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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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..?
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?
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?
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.
He cannot think of a solution to stop the constant locust stream and force the more fun active Swarm host usage? Really? He expects us to believe that? 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.
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)
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.
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.
He's responding without answering. "Why is SC2 so deathbally" isn't answered in any way by "we like it when the peoples micro".
Some of his answers aren't too bad in fairness, but it's things like discussing Forcefield and mentioning only the anti-micro aspect of it and giving the (legitimate) counter-manouveres that can be done.
Many of the people who rail against it is because the entire Protoss race has been balanced and designed around it, that map design has been always having to factor in the ability to FF chokes etc. In his position a redesign is too big a step IMO, Blizz aren't supporting the SC2 dev team much if I'm going into the realms of conjecture.
The entire reason of the MSC was to enable Protoss to actually move out in the map in PvZ and do pressure without it being an all-or-nothing move, because losing your sentries meant losing the game in WoL.
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2.
Not really, WC3 and BW were different, but I preferred both of them to SC2, especially SC2 in its current state
I wish people would stop devaluing the opinion of others by attributing it to nostalgia all the time, damn irritating.
i love NHL '94 hockey. its EA's best sports game ever made IMO. thousands agree with me. we don't bother trying to get EA to make a sequel. we just play NHL '94.
why not just play Brood War like we do with NHL '94?
i've never made a single complaint post about any of EA's NHL series of games. its a waste of my time.
if Blizzard got dead silence on SC2 they'd hear that more clearly than any complaint post you could ever make.
These answers only reinforce the perception that David Kim has no idea what he's doing. His answer about Oracles is particularly clueless - of course Oracles are becoming less predominant with time, but that isn't a reason to avoid nerfing them. He's simply turning a blind eye to how badly they warp the early game.
Because the Oracle is so strong, Terrans have to sit in their base and turtle up. Terrans have to build an early Ebay. Terrans have to keep at least part of their army inside their mineral line for defense. Terrans have to conform to very rigid build orders that ensure sufficient marines at very specific timings. If they don't, they risk a snowballing effect which simply ends the game.
What's the end result? Terran play becomes extremely narrow, extremely predictable and extremely boring. Terrans are forced into extremely specific reactor and barracks timings that can easily be punished with a slight variation in Protoss play. Chrono out just a couple of early units instead of probes and you can easily gain a huge BO advantage because Terrans are simply so predictable. And what's the impact on Protoss play? Protoss can become greedier and greedier. The mere threat of a proxy Oracle allows progressively greedier openings which scared, turtle-y Terrans cannot punish. You see the same thing with Blink openings - the mere threat forces the Terran to be passive, forcing them into a defensive posture, which allows Protoss to take an early-mid game lead, which pretty much decides the game barring major Protoss fuckups.
I want to believe that David Kim is smarter than his answers suggest. He probably is, but most of his intellectual energy is probably being directed towards Heroes of the Storm. Regardless, I'm just happy that we have Starbow, which is infinitely better than regular SC2 in its current state (and this is coming from someone who never played BW.)
On February 06 2014 21:52 MysticaL wrote: so the tl;dr is: David Kim dodging real questions with typical politically correct answers
I don't get the point of this. Has Blizzard become a company of red tape rather than a developer at the forefront? SC2 is a shadow of a game compared to BW and everyone including Blizzard know that so............. I don't see what the point is of pretending otherwise.
It seems that it has...now instead of taking two extra years to make a game to "get it right", they take three extra and hand us the likes of D3 @ release and SC2.
Blizzard must own up to what a colossal screw-up SC2 is and start the overhaul process. Of course, that won't happen, but a man can dream
"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.
On February 06 2014 21:52 MysticaL wrote: so the tl;dr is: David Kim dodging real questions with typical politically correct answers
I don't get the point of this. Has Blizzard become a company of red tape rather than a developer at the forefront? SC2 is a shadow of a game compared to BW and everyone including Blizzard know that so............. I don't see what the point is of pretending otherwise.
It seems that it has...now instead of taking two extra years to make a game to "get it right", they take three extra and hand us the likes of D3 @ release and SC2.
Blizzard must own up to what a colossal screw-up SC2 is and start the overhaul process. Of course, that won't happen, but a man can dream
It's funny that a developer with practically infinite money could be so incompetent...
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.
On February 06 2014 21:52 MysticaL wrote: so the tl;dr is: David Kim dodging real questions with typical politically correct answers
I don't get the point of this. Has Blizzard become a company of red tape rather than a developer at the forefront? SC2 is a shadow of a game compared to BW and everyone including Blizzard know that so............. I don't see what the point is of pretending otherwise.
It seems that it has...now instead of taking two extra years to make a game to "get it right", they take three extra and hand us the likes of D3 @ release and SC2.
Blizzard must own up to what a colossal screw-up SC2 is and start the overhaul process. Of course, that won't happen, but a man can dream
It's funny that a developer with practically infinite money could be so incompetent...
That would indeed be funny. I'm not sure which developer you're talking about though?
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.
He's responding without answering. "Why is SC2 so deathbally" isn't answered in any way by "we like it when the peoples micro".
"Why is SC2 so deathbally" is easy and he answered it fine. Unlimited unit selection encourages deathballs, and he responded in the latter paragraph by saying they're working towards actively improving that aspect for LotV.
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 00:02 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.
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?
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.
Both questions remain unanswered. WHY? No answer, but an explanation of what a deathball game is. Has he thought about changing it? No - They don't want to get rid of "mass army vs. mass army" (aka Deathballs), but want some more harassment, and we all know what that brings us (ORACLES 0.0!!)
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?
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.
Forcefield and Warpgate make Protoss deathbally. Answer: It's racedefining ?! 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!
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.
How to make Capital Ships useful? We've "learned" (when!?!?!) capital ships are rare and lose their cool if they are build every game. What kind of answer is that?! Hey guys, there's this unit we put in the game, but is unusable because if it was usable that wouldn't be cool...?! See the flaw in logic? 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.
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.
First part of the question is decently answered. WHEN isn't answered by "we need to test first", but at least the plans are laid out. 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.
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.
This compares well to the Tempest buff they want to do. Mass Raven is a problem because it allows Terran to turtle all game (FYI, Terran turtles TO GET the Raven, not to allow them to turtle -,-). Again they are considering a nerf to the only unit that can handle Swarm Hosts. Ravens and Tempest are not the problem -> Swarm Hosts and Zergs AA are!
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)
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.
Again, Raven/BC turtle is only a problem because the Swarm Host negates ground play. Nerfing Raven/BC makes Mech auto-lose against Swarm Hosts. Nerf Hosts Buff Zerg AA, fixes 2 matchups OMG David! It can be that easy :-) 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.
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.
Protoss Strength in PvT
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.
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?
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.
The fix to Blink All Ins is Mobius Reactor removal...?!?! :confused: 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.
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.
This is silly too > Oracles see less use because Terrans adapted their builds to have 6 Marines in a mineral line at the Oracle timing. It has nothing to do with terran figuring out how to defend, it limits Terran in tech and economy early in the game just by the sheer threat of it. This is also why BCs are never used - The threat of Tempests shuts them out. 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.
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.
Warp Gate/Forcefields
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?
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.
ZvZ
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?
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.
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..?
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?
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?
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.
He cannot think of a solution to stop the constant locust stream and force the more fun active Swarm host usage? Really? He expects us to believe that? 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.
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.
Zerg Anti-Air
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)
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.
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 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."
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.
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.
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!
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?"
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.
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 04:00 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.
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote: 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.
I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
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.
Got to make sure Avilo is there to accuse David Kim if playing only Protoss.
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote: 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.
I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
Balance discussions would fall under that category. But when you see the captain of the ship demonstrate how incompetent he is, you only have two options -- jump ship or mutiny.
Most have jumped, I reckon the rest should mutiny. At least get someone who has some vision or at least knows where he's going.
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote: 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.
Lol, the community has never been constructive. Starbow should be proof of that...the more control the community thinks it has, the more they'll act like assholes.
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote: 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.
I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote: 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.
I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
Balance discussions would fall under that category. But when you see the captain of the ship demonstrate how incompetent he is, you only have two options -- jump ship or mutiny.
Most have jumped, I reckon the rest should mutiny. At least get someone who has some vision or at least knows where he's going.
Disagreeing with you, or even the majority (it's not clear it is the majority) is not a useful metric for competence.
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote: 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.
I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
It would go a long way for sure. Really we just need and balance and game design sub form.
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
In TvZ it is really starting to feel like you have to pick out of 3 bad options because you NEED AOE vs MLB. Tanks > Nerfed, Hellbats > Nerfed, Mines > Nerfed. I'm sad David doesn't even consider reverting the Helbat and Siege Tank nerfs, we're in an entirely new metagame.
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
In TvZ it is really starting to feel like you have to pick out of 3 bad options because you NEED AOE vs MLB. Tanks > Nerfed, Hellbats > Nerfed, Mines > Nerfed. I'm sad David doesn't even consider reverting the Helbat and Siege Tank nerfs, we're in an entirely new metagame.
Tanks were nerfed? I thought the last tank change was a buff?
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote: 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.
Lol, the community has never been constructive. Starbow should be proof of that...the more control the community thinks it has, the more they'll act like assholes.
I havent seen that, is Starbow now the proof case that community based development is, in fact, a terrible idea?
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
In TvZ it is really starting to feel like you have to pick out of 3 bad options because you NEED AOE vs MLB. Tanks > Nerfed, Hellbats > Nerfed, Mines > Nerfed. I'm sad David doesn't even consider reverting the Helbat and Siege Tank nerfs, we're in an entirely new metagame.
Tanks were nerfed? I thought the last tank change was a buff?
Tanks have not been nerfed since WoL, but mutas were buffed, so they are worse in comparison.
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.
Ok, so i dont know why the hell people still think that PO is just for PvP when its actually really clear that they put it in the game to deal with Speedvacs, mutas and harassment over all. In WoL was really hard to defend against harassment from zerg and terran without getting your whole army out of position due to the fact that gateway units sucked as defense.
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
In TvZ it is really starting to feel like you have to pick out of 3 bad options because you NEED AOE vs MLB. Tanks > Nerfed, Hellbats > Nerfed, Mines > Nerfed. I'm sad David doesn't even consider reverting the Helbat and Siege Tank nerfs, we're in an entirely new metagame.
Tanks were nerfed? I thought the last tank change was a buff?
Tanks have not been nerfed since WoL, but mutas were buffed, so they are worse in comparison.
That's very true. Claiming that tanks were nerfed any time recently (the last time was in 2010 when Terrans were in a pretty good spot) is a blatant lie though.
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
In TvZ it is really starting to feel like you have to pick out of 3 bad options because you NEED AOE vs MLB. Tanks > Nerfed, Hellbats > Nerfed, Mines > Nerfed. I'm sad David doesn't even consider reverting the Helbat and Siege Tank nerfs, we're in an entirely new metagame.
Tanks were nerfed? I thought the last tank change was a buff?
Tanks have not been nerfed since WoL, but mutas were buffed, so they are worse in comparison.
That's very true. Claiming that tanks were nerfed any time recently (the last time was in 2010 when Terrans were in a pretty good spot) is a blatant lie though.
I agree, I wasn't clear enough. Tanks haven't been nerfed recently, but because of the larger and more open maps and the buffs to mutalisk they perform worse than ever. EDIT - not to forget the current Metagame that demands fast play as well as fast upgrades, which both dislike the Siege Tank.
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote: 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.
Lol, the community has never been constructive. Starbow should be proof of that...the more control the community thinks it has, the more they'll act like assholes.
I havent seen that, is Starbow now the proof case that community based development is, in fact, a terrible idea?
I don't follow the thread that much, I just remember a lot of vitriol regarding Irradiate balance changes. Avilo was especially dumb, but that's avilo for you.
And I wouldn't say proof. All it shows is that, at the end of the day, the community is just a bunch of individuals screaming for what they personally want. If a developer has to sift through dozens of garbage suggestions on a 160 page board for a map mod that probably gets a few hundred players at most, the task is even more ludicrous if you have to listen to thousands of angry little voices.
No matter how much Starbow is supposed to be community driven, it will inevitably revolve on the developer's own opinions.
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote: 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.
I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
Balance discussions would fall under that category. But when you see the captain of the ship demonstrate how incompetent he is, you only have two options -- jump ship or mutiny.
Most have jumped, I reckon the rest should mutiny. At least get someone who has some vision or at least knows where he's going.
In your analogy are the remaining community members part of the ship crew? If so, are you suggesting that an uprising should be started with the aim to kidnap or otherwise remove David Kim from his duties?
On February 07 2014 04:41 Wertheron wrote: We need 1 million game designers to please 1 million players.
I would say that it's not strictly necessary for a game to reach BW level participation rate to be considered a success. But it's difficult to imagine that the current status quo is optimal by any measure.
I will agree that the real underlying problem is one of design and not balance. That is to say it's more a Dustin Browder problem than a David Kim problem. He doesn't need to please everyone but right now he's certainly not pleasing enough people.
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote: 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.
I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
The problem with SC2 is that the developers and the players have completely different ideas of what they want when they play. And talking with the developers just doesn't have much effect on the game. Or what the players request is being done 1-2 years later.
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
In TvZ it is really starting to feel like you have to pick out of 3 bad options because you NEED AOE vs MLB. Tanks > Nerfed, Hellbats > Nerfed, Mines > Nerfed. I'm sad David doesn't even consider reverting the Helbat and Siege Tank nerfs, we're in an entirely new metagame.
Tanks were nerfed? I thought the last tank change was a buff?
Tanks have not been nerfed since WoL, but mutas were buffed, so they are worse in comparison.
That's very true. Claiming that tanks were nerfed any time recently (the last time was in 2010 when Terrans were in a pretty good spot) is a blatant lie though.
I agree, I wasn't clear enough. Tanks haven't been nerfed recently, but because of the larger and more open maps and the buffs to mutalisk they perform worse than ever. EDIT - not to forget the current Metagame that demands fast play as well as fast upgrades, which both dislike the Siege Tank.
Based upon which data? They perform pretty amazing in 2/3 matchups. In TvT probably better than ever.
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote: 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.
I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
The problem with SC2 is that the developers and the players have completely different ideas of what they want when they play. And talking with the developers just doesn't have much effect on the game. Or what the players request is being done 1-2 years later.
So tell me what do I want that the developers dont implement?
TBH forcefields are really only silly once Protoss has 10+ sentries and are spamming them haphazardly. Watching hot pickup/ roach burrow play is pretty cool, but it'd be nice if that wasn't used as an excuse to prevent any possible improvements/changes.
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
In TvZ it is really starting to feel like you have to pick out of 3 bad options because you NEED AOE vs MLB. Tanks > Nerfed, Hellbats > Nerfed, Mines > Nerfed. I'm sad David doesn't even consider reverting the Helbat and Siege Tank nerfs, we're in an entirely new metagame.
Tanks were nerfed? I thought the last tank change was a buff?
Tanks have not been nerfed since WoL, but mutas were buffed, so they are worse in comparison.
That's very true. Claiming that tanks were nerfed any time recently (the last time was in 2010 when Terrans were in a pretty good spot) is a blatant lie though.
I agree, I wasn't clear enough. Tanks haven't been nerfed recently, but because of the larger and more open maps and the buffs to mutalisk they perform worse than ever. EDIT - not to forget the current Metagame that demands fast play as well as fast upgrades, which both dislike the Siege Tank.
Based upon which data? They perform pretty amazing in 2/3 matchups. In TvT probably better than ever.
Fairly sure he refers to the weakness of Marines/Tanks against muta play.
some ppl might hate me but i still think hellbat nerf was the thing that broke tvp
msc was added with the pretense that t could compete fairly in lategame now with toss but hellbats now are too risky and take too long to tech up to
teching into hellbats now you are taking a massive risk to dying (hellbats are basically paper weights against zealots with no blue flame) not to mention making yourself weak in the midgame when you should be the strongest
they should have tried removing the bio tag (like many ppl wanted) because medivacs increased their lifespan by an insane amount b4 stim was done in tvt
also hellbat drops in tvt was just harass into macro games - tvt on ladder from my experience right now is mostly banshee or 1/1/1 pushes instead of hellbat drops so it just replaced 1 thing with another
hopefully this is ok to post here.
thx.
Either way its pointless to talk about it once blizz makes a change I doubt they will ever revert it no matter what.
On February 07 2014 01:19 Roswell wrote: [quote] 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
In TvZ it is really starting to feel like you have to pick out of 3 bad options because you NEED AOE vs MLB. Tanks > Nerfed, Hellbats > Nerfed, Mines > Nerfed. I'm sad David doesn't even consider reverting the Helbat and Siege Tank nerfs, we're in an entirely new metagame.
Tanks were nerfed? I thought the last tank change was a buff?
Tanks have not been nerfed since WoL, but mutas were buffed, so they are worse in comparison.
That's very true. Claiming that tanks were nerfed any time recently (the last time was in 2010 when Terrans were in a pretty good spot) is a blatant lie though.
I agree, I wasn't clear enough. Tanks haven't been nerfed recently, but because of the larger and more open maps and the buffs to mutalisk they perform worse than ever. EDIT - not to forget the current Metagame that demands fast play as well as fast upgrades, which both dislike the Siege Tank.
Based upon which data? They perform pretty amazing in 2/3 matchups. In TvT probably better than ever.
Fairly sure he refers to the weakness of Marines/Tanks against muta play.
yeah but it has a very solid place in the matchup currently. Not every unit has to be amazing with every composition to be considered good.
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote: 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.
I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
The problem with SC2 is that the developers and the players have completely different ideas of what they want when they play. And talking with the developers just doesn't have much effect on the game. Or what the players request is being done 1-2 years later.
The problem is that the players have completely different ideas of what they want when they play.
Get a solid consensus from everyone and then send that to Blizzard. Good luck and God speed.
I'm pretty sure amateur players, pros and viewers are pretty aligned on what they want from the game. Blizzard wants something completely different and are acting corporatively, dismissing every other opinion and just giving automatic responses (like in this thread) justifying their awful decisions and planning.
I hate to break it to you, but most people do not agree on much at all. Anyone who has tried to order pizza for more tha ln 5 people has seen that even simple thing cannot be agreed on
On February 07 2014 05:42 Aserrin wrote: I'm pretty sure amateur players, pros and viewers are pretty aligned on what they want from the game. Blizzard wants something completely different and are acting corporatively, dismissing every other opinion and just giving automatic responses (like in this thread) justifying their awful decisions and planning.
Nope. Some people act like it's unanimously agreed that Brood War is a better game than Starcraft II for example, which is not the case. Some people act like everyone agrees that Swarm Hosts are boring, while this is not the case. Some people think everyone agrees when they say that Protoss is overpowered, but this isn't the case either. People really don't agree on much of anything. The people with the loudest voices sometimes make it seem like a lot of people are in agreement, but that's an illusion most of the time.
On February 07 2014 05:42 Aserrin wrote: I'm pretty sure amateur players, pros and viewers are pretty aligned on what they want from the game. Blizzard wants something completely different and are acting corporatively, dismissing every other opinion and just giving automatic responses (like in this thread) justifying their awful decisions and planning.
Nope. Some people act like it's unanimously agreed that Brood War is a better game than Starcraft II for example, which is not the case. Some people act like everyone agrees that Swarm Hosts are boring, while this is not the case. Some people think everyone agrees when they say that Protoss is overpowered, but this isn't the case either. People really don't agree on much of anything. The people with the loudest voices sometimes make it seem like a lot of people are in agreement, but that's an illusion most of the time.
Exactly, it goes like this even for PvT complaints. Some people say, that problem is super strong Toss early game (can throw powerfull all-ins, or can be greedy), other people say, that problem is that Protoss lategame "deathball" is OP. Some people claim, that Protoss is OP both early game and late game. And some guys just say, that Protoss is soooo riduculously OP, that it's wonder, that they don't have 99% winrate everywhere, everytime...
On February 06 2014 19:51 dargul wrote: Lets poll and see if common players still trust Kim, or may be he is incompetent and must leave this game for god sake.
Poll: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
Yeh he is awsome. (29)
15%
He is slowpoke but ok. (23)
12%
He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (131)
66%
I don't care i play moba already. (17)
9%
200 total votes
Your vote: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
(Vote): Yeh he is awsome. (Vote): He is slowpoke but ok. (Vote): He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (Vote): I don't care i play moba already.
I think result is pretty obvious. I hope that kim will notice this and change something in his behaviour...
On February 06 2014 19:51 dargul wrote: Lets poll and see if common players still trust Kim, or may be he is incompetent and must leave this game for god sake.
Poll: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
Yeh he is awsome. (29)
15%
He is slowpoke but ok. (23)
12%
He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (131)
66%
I don't care i play moba already. (17)
9%
200 total votes
Your vote: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
(Vote): Yeh he is awsome. (Vote): He is slowpoke but ok. (Vote): He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (Vote): I don't care i play moba already.
I think result is pretty obvious. I hope that kim will notice this and change something in his behaviour...
I think they call that a "push poll" in the industry. Doesn't really prove much at all.
On February 06 2014 19:51 dargul wrote: Lets poll and see if common players still trust Kim, or may be he is incompetent and must leave this game for god sake.
Poll: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
Yeh he is awsome. (29)
15%
He is slowpoke but ok. (23)
12%
He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (131)
66%
I don't care i play moba already. (17)
9%
200 total votes
Your vote: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
(Vote): Yeh he is awsome. (Vote): He is slowpoke but ok. (Vote): He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (Vote): I don't care i play moba already.
I think result is pretty obvious. I hope that kim will notice this and change something in his behaviour...
So shall we assume that the tens of thousands of people that didn't vote are happy with David Kim? Or that they hate him? I don't know man, less than 200 people voting altogether isn't a very convincing result.
Even Protoss players don't like warp gates and forcefields (I am one of them). I just don't get why Blizzard is so proud about the design of that and won't ever think of changing something about them. The Starbow solution where not all units can be warped in is a great change that means warp gates has a drawback and you need to have both gateways and warp gates.
What if only zealots and DT's could be warped in to keep the unique harassment options with pylons and warp prisms but stalkers/sentries/HT's needs to be produced normally? Certainly makes macro a lot harder and doesn't take away any unique feel of the race.
I'm a Protoss player and I like WG and Forcefield. As to Starbow, the restriction on Dragoon (and Dragoon only) warp-in is one of the more sillier features found in a Starcraft game. I think it a crude change to a cool mechanic.
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote: 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.
I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
It would go a long way for sure. Really we just need and balance and game design sub form.
Well yeah, which i and many others have requested, so don't moan at us for bringing it into threads where it's at least halfway relevant.
And no, there isn't anything approaching unanimity when it comes to the opinions on aspects of the game, doesn't mean you shouldn't express your opinions. I do agree that people using things like 'objectively bad' to back their points look stupid in doing so, but as long as you don't speak as if you represent everybody, critique as much as you want.
Yeah its silly to be so absolute in a statement. I also know a protoss that loves his FF, he thinks its the coolest mechanic in the game and defends it vehemently, despite me and another player pointing out to him repeatedly how the mechanic just breaks and limits protoss design.
I initially did like them from a design standpoint, I thought it was cool to have a different production mechanic like that, as well as a spell that interacted with armies in such a way, but then I observed the game more over the years and I understood exactly how they where impacting the game and came to hate them.
I still think WG can be salvaged as a mechanic if it was T3 and had some restrictions, like regular Gateways being better for standard production and WG better for harass, but FF is just unsolvable, too polarizing a spell, too micro limiting, too restrictive on map design.
Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that, yes people have wildly differing opinions. Some opinions can be changed in time, like I changed mine, and some are nearly set in stone.
On February 06 2014 19:51 dargul wrote: Lets poll and see if common players still trust Kim, or may be he is incompetent and must leave this game for god sake.
Poll: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
Yeh he is awsome. (29)
15%
He is slowpoke but ok. (23)
12%
He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (131)
66%
I don't care i play moba already. (17)
9%
200 total votes
Your vote: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
(Vote): Yeh he is awsome. (Vote): He is slowpoke but ok. (Vote): He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (Vote): I don't care i play moba already.
I think result is pretty obvious. I hope that kim will notice this and change something in his behaviour...
So shall we assume that the tens of thousands of people that didn't vote are happy with David Kim? Or that they hate him? I don't know man, less than 200 people voting altogether isn't a very convincing result.
You can't ask every1 it's obvious. But lets remember how social polls are working - you take random people from the targeted social group and ask for their opinion. The bigger this group is the better.
In our case we have group of people which discuss kim and his balance desigions. There are about 400posts in this thread and about 200 opinions about kim. Think for yourself if it is big enough. Ofcourse it doesn't prove anything it is like politics -you can't prove anything. But you can make people to think in right direction.
I would agree that this poll means nothing if it was rather close, but we can see that (111/154 atm) 72%+ hate Kim...
My opinion is that David Kim is a pretty damn good balance guy, considering how many volatile things are in the game and don't appear likely to be removed. Conjecture here obv but I have said numerous times that I doubt there are many guys even working on SC2 atm, so even if the guy wanted to make wholesale changes he lacks the investment from Blizzard to do so.
On February 06 2014 19:51 dargul wrote: Lets poll and see if common players still trust Kim, or may be he is incompetent and must leave this game for god sake.
Poll: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
Yeh he is awsome. (29)
15%
He is slowpoke but ok. (23)
12%
He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (131)
66%
I don't care i play moba already. (17)
9%
200 total votes
Your vote: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
(Vote): Yeh he is awsome. (Vote): He is slowpoke but ok. (Vote): He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (Vote): I don't care i play moba already.
I think result is pretty obvious. I hope that kim will notice this and change something in his behaviour...
So shall we assume that the tens of thousands of people that didn't vote are happy with David Kim? Or that they hate him? I don't know man, less than 200 people voting altogether isn't a very convincing result.
You can't ask every1 it's obvious. But lets remember how social polls are working - you take random people from the targeted social group and ask for their opinion. The bigger this group is the better.
In our case we have group of people which discuss kim and his balance desigions. There are about 400posts in this thread and about 200 opinions about kim. Think for yourself if it is big enough. Ofcourse it doesn't prove anything it is like politics -you can't prove anything. But you can make people to think in right direction.
I would agree that this poll means nothing if it was rather close, but we can see that (111/154 atm) 72%+ hate Kim...
A TeamLiquid thread is not "random people". People on TL are more likely to be critical about balance and design than random players, and a thread about David Kim, furthermore, is more likely to have a higher concentration of people disliking the aforementioned's design and balance decisions. Besides, the way you worded the poll isn't neutral and limits what people can say about the situation.
The contents of a thread and opinions of people in the threat are never representive of the whole population. There is nothing truely random about the people who click on the thead and post in it. There is a reason polling is a full time profession. Because getting accurate poll numbers of a given population is harder than just throwing one in a thread.
Precisely what Zealously said. You could construct a far better picture of how people perceive David Kim and Dustin Browder if you had a poll on TL, B.net and, Reddit, added up the results and if you had a sort of in game poll where every player gets the poll upon logging in.
On February 07 2014 07:09 Destructicon wrote: Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that, yes people have wildly differing opinions. Some opinions can be changed in time, like I changed mine, and some are nearly set in stone.
You know soon after I started playing this game I did not like WG or FF? I thought them bad features. Haha. Things change.
On February 07 2014 07:01 aZealot wrote: I'm a Protoss player and I like WG and Forcefield. As to Starbow, the restriction on Dragoon (and Dragoon only) warp-in is one of the more sillier features found in a Starcraft game. I think it a crude change to a cool mechanic.
On February 07 2014 01:11 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On February 07 2014 00:47 RDaneelOlivaw wrote:
On February 06 2014 23:43 b0rt_ wrote:
On February 06 2014 21:52 MysticaL wrote: so the tl;dr is: David Kim dodging real questions with typical politically correct answers
I don't get the point of this. Has Blizzard become a company of red tape rather than a developer at the forefront? SC2 is a shadow of a game compared to BW and everyone including Blizzard know that so............. I don't see what the point is of pretending otherwise.
It seems that it has...now instead of taking two extra years to make a game to "get it right", they take three extra and hand us the likes of D3 @ release and SC2.
Blizzard must own up to what a colossal screw-up SC2 is and start the overhaul process. Of course, that won't happen, but a man can dream
It's funny that a developer with practically infinite money could be so incompetent...
That would indeed be funny. I'm not sure which developer you're talking about though?
I agree, I don't think the core of the issue is incompetence w/ SC2. It's esports. Now it's all about making a balanced game that is viable for competitive play. When you start out designing a game for balance instead of "coolness," you're going to struggle making in making a great product. Good maybe, like SC2, but not great like BW.
On February 07 2014 07:01 aZealot wrote: I'm a Protoss player and I like WG and Forcefield. As to Starbow, the restriction on Dragoon (and Dragoon only) warp-in is one of the more sillier features found in a Starcraft game. I think it a crude change to a cool mechanic.
What about fungals?
I think fungals are fine. (I don't like Time Warp though.)
They are kind of a necessity nowadays against Airtoss, and the HT/Infestor dance can be quite intense.
Back in the day though, holy fuck fungal. I once literally lost a maxed army in a game for a trade of about 10 Zerg supply after I screwed up and got caught in fungals . Oh the horror
On February 07 2014 07:33 SC2Toastie wrote: Area controlling spells like storm/time warp/forcefield/fungal etc are really fun to use for yourself, but really annoying for everybody else.
I think movement or action restricting spells are bad unless you have a counter too it, so its all about the context.
I was ok with stuns and slows and hexes in WC3, because the game was build around spells and thus, you had appropriate counters in the game as well, like dispel, devour magic etc.
I am completely against those sort of spells in SC2, because SC2 is more about army control, positioning, space control, then about spell casters and their interactions.
Storm is an ok spell, it deals a large amount of damage over time in an area, the fact its damage over time means you can mitigate its effects, split out of its way etc.
On February 07 2014 07:33 SC2Toastie wrote: Area controlling spells like storm/time warp/forcefield/fungal etc are really fun to use for yourself, but really annoying for everybody else.
I think movement or action restricting spells are bad unless you have a counter too it, so its all about the context.
I was ok with stuns and slows and hexes in WC3, because the game was build around spells and thus, you had appropriate counters in the game as well, like dispel, devour magic etc.
I am completely against those sort of spells in SC2, because SC2 is more about army control, positioning, space control, then about spell casters and their interactions.
Storm is an ok spell, it deals a large amount of damage over time in an area, the fact its damage over time means you can mitigate its effects, split out of its way etc.
I didn't say they were wrong/right, I said they're more fun for the user than for the victim.
On February 07 2014 07:01 aZealot wrote: I'm a Protoss player and I like WG and Forcefield. As to Starbow, the restriction on Dragoon (and Dragoon only) warp-in is one of the more sillier features found in a Starcraft game. I think it a crude change to a cool mechanic.
What about fungals?
I think fungals are fine.
Welp I suppose we are of different viewpoints then. Mind you it's not so much I absolutely hate movement restricting spells, it's just that SC2 has no counter checks in place to stop any snowballing. What's wrong with exploring ways to make spells more dynamic? Phoenixes have absolute immobilization, but with their own restrictions. HotS made fungal a projectile (could be different, but an obvious improvement over WOL). Pipe dream but would it really be that bad if (#s rebalanced) sentries had say channeling forcefields?
Its funny to see so many positive comments about War3 here. When War3 was out the general Broodwar response to it was how it was so inferior to Broodwar. You even heard a ton of that from Artosis and Tasteless in the first 4-5 GSL seasons always talking about how the former Broodwar players were just better than the War3 players and insulting the game.
Now you have the same thing. Sorry to say but StarCraft 2 is so much better than Broodwar it isn't funny. Although I think we took two steps in the wrong direction in HotS (Swarmhost and widowmines - oh my when they also detected...) just like Blizzard put in some bad unit choices when Broodwar came out (Corsair, Valk, Medic - healing rate, Lurker) as well. I think overall the game is better unlike Broodwar and the design team has done a great job.
Some things that StarCraft 2 really improved on Broodwar on:
1) Mobility of Terran and Protoss (this was very limited in Broodwar, game plays more fluidly and quicker). 2) Reducing Terran macro to LOL easy, Protoss to easy, and zerg to moderate. They also added in a skill element to each class to reward multitasking in the Mule, Chronoboost, and Larvae Inject, but the Larvae inject is more difficult than the other two.
The strange thing in this thread is people saying removing warp gate would make protoss macro harder. No it would be insanely easier. Pressing '3' and 'z' while watching your army and letting troops rally to you (the terran model) is easier and safer while pressing '1' '1' to get to your pylon and then wargate and spam mouse click while holding down 'z' is quite more demanding and requires your screen to be off.
This thread makes me wonder how people can have such strong balance demands from David Kim and yet not even understand the most basic fundamentals of how the game works.
Terran is tougher micro, easier macro than Toss. Toss is easier micro, tougher macro than Terran. Simplistically as an overarching theme. There are obviously ways to play each that change that (the weird Thor attack move rush with scvs on autorepair is obviously less micro intensive --- and yes Artosis streamed himself losing to that in a GSL qualifier)
Honestly, this all comes down to how design directly affects balance. David Kim comes out to answer balance questions and ends up talking at length about how the design of units and race-defining attributes like FF and WG are things they don't want to look at. It's pretty obvious that they're stuck in what they've made the game into. They can't simply undo warp-gate, forcefield, ravens, fungal, swarm-hosts and widow-mines; all of these things that they consider essential parts of the game's design that directly affect the balance are moot points to them in many regards. What suggestions can the community possibly make to Blizzard about design that won't insult the people who designed these units, abilities and race-specific mechanics?
When people complain that phoenixes are too strong, isn't it more a problem of queens being too important to the production capabilities of Zerg? Or, is it that they suck at scouting and need to practice?
When people complain that you can't kill a Protoss in the early game, is it because of a single thing (Nexus Cannon) or a collection of bullshit abilities and little advantages?
When ghosts got horribly nerfed in every matchup is it because they were too strong, or was Blizzard's design team incompetent when they never gave zerg a hard-counter to the ghost? Why is snipe suddenly only useful against psionic-biological? Why was EMP's radius reduced when the problem may have been the "better" unit pathing stacking the Protoss army too hard?
SC2's problems are more deep-seeded than simply tweaking numbers and costs of units. The balance of the game depends too heavily on abilities and compositions. The design of SC2 is so fundamentally different from that of Broodwar that the two games are almost incomparable. We see that in how matchups are so different now. What I'm saying, is we can't look to Broodwar for "advice" on fixing this game, because its problems are ones which never existed in Broodwar. This, I feel, is unfortunate because it means that Blizzard are as clueless or conflicted when making balance changes due to the constraints of their own design that the opinions of the community are a kind of background noise.
On February 07 2014 08:08 Eliezar wrote: Its funny to see so many positive comments about War3 here. When War3 was out the general Broodwar response to it was how it was so inferior to Broodwar. You even heard a ton of that from Artosis and Tasteless in the first 4-5 GSL seasons always talking about how the former Broodwar players were just better than the War3 players and insulting the game.
Now you have the same thing. Sorry to say but StarCraft 2 is so much better than Broodwar it isn't funny. Although I think we took two steps in the wrong direction in HotS (Swarmhost and widowmines - oh my when they also detected...) just like Blizzard put in some bad unit choices when Broodwar came out (Corsair, Valk, Medic - healing rate, Lurker) as well. I think overall the game is better unlike Broodwar and the design team has done a great job.
Some things that StarCraft 2 really improved on Broodwar on:
1) Mobility of Terran and Protoss (this was very limited in Broodwar, game plays more fluidly and quicker). 2) Reducing Terran macro to LOL easy, Protoss to easy, and zerg to moderate. They also added in a skill element to each class to reward multitasking in the Mule, Chronoboost, and Larvae Inject, but the Larvae inject is more difficult than the other two.
The strange thing in this thread is people saying removing warp gate would make protoss macro harder. No it would be insanely easier. Pressing '3' and 'z' while watching your army and letting troops rally to you (the terran model) is easier and safer while pressing '1' '1' to get to your pylon and then wargate and spam mouse click while holding down 'z' is quite more demanding and requires your screen to be off.
This thread makes me wonder how people can have such strong balance demands from David Kim and yet not even understand the most basic fundamentals of how the game works.
Terran is tougher micro, easier macro than Toss. Toss is easier micro, tougher macro than Terran. Simplistically as an overarching theme. There are obviously ways to play each that change that (the weird Thor attack move rush with scvs on autorepair is obviously less micro intensive --- and yes Artosis streamed himself losing to that in a GSL qualifier)
On February 07 2014 08:08 Eliezar wrote: Its funny to see so many positive comments about War3 here. When War3 was out the general Broodwar response to it was how it was so inferior to Broodwar. You even heard a ton of that from Artosis and Tasteless in the first 4-5 GSL seasons always talking about how the former Broodwar players were just better than the War3 players and insulting the game.
Now you have the same thing. Sorry to say but StarCraft 2 is so much better than Broodwar it isn't funny. Although I think we took two steps in the wrong direction in HotS (Swarmhost and widowmines - oh my when they also detected...) just like Blizzard put in some bad unit choices when Broodwar came out (Corsair, Valk, Medic - healing rate, Lurker) as well. I think overall the game is better unlike Broodwar and the design team has done a great job.
Some things that StarCraft 2 really improved on Broodwar on:
1) Mobility of Terran and Protoss (this was very limited in Broodwar, game plays more fluidly and quicker). 2) Reducing Terran macro to LOL easy, Protoss to easy, and zerg to moderate. They also added in a skill element to each class to reward multitasking in the Mule, Chronoboost, and Larvae Inject, but the Larvae inject is more difficult than the other two.
The strange thing in this thread is people saying removing warp gate would make protoss macro harder. No it would be insanely easier. Pressing '3' and 'z' while watching your army and letting troops rally to you (the terran model) is easier and safer while pressing '1' '1' to get to your pylon and then wargate and spam mouse click while holding down 'z' is quite more demanding and requires your screen to be off.
This thread makes me wonder how people can have such strong balance demands from David Kim and yet not even understand the most basic fundamentals of how the game works.
Terran is tougher micro, easier macro than Toss. Toss is easier micro, tougher macro than Terran. Simplistically as an overarching theme. There are obviously ways to play each that change that (the weird Thor attack move rush with scvs on autorepair is obviously less micro intensive --- and yes Artosis streamed himself losing to that in a GSL qualifier)
On February 07 2014 08:08 Eliezar wrote: 1) Mobility of Terran and Protoss (this was very limited in Broodwar, game plays more fluidly and quicker). 2) Reducing Terran macro to LOL easy, Protoss to easy, and zerg to moderate. They also added in a skill element to each class to reward multitasking in the Mule, Chronoboost, and Larvae Inject, but the Larvae inject is more difficult than the other two.
The strange thing in this thread is people saying removing warp gate would make protoss macro harder. No it would be insanely easier. Pressing '3' and 'z' while watching your army and letting troops rally to you (the terran model) is easier and safer while pressing '1' '1' to get to your pylon and then wargate and spam mouse click while holding down 'z' is quite more demanding and requires your screen to be off.
What? The "normal" Terran-like production is way more demanding because even if you can queue (which can lead to "overqueue" or "underqueue" mistakes, something people never mention when they comment on the supposed comfort of that model of production), you have to produce constantly, ideally with the regularity of a clock, even when there are a lot of other tasks you need to perform (e. g. microing a drop; compare with the Protoss side in which defending a drop and producing are partially the same action: warping stuff). On the other hand, Warpgate often allows you to skip rounds of production and "catch up" later since the unit is instantly produced—not to mention how Warpgate allows you to dispose of banks much easier; and let us not talk about the complete lack of reinforcement management (how many times you see Terran or Zerg reinforcements get picked off on the way) for units since you can literally produce them near your army. Besides, moving your screen to your Pylon is hardly a problem when 90% of your units in battle are purely a-click (Zealots, Archons, Colossi, Immortals, Voids) and thus operate fine in autopilot while you're watching elsewhere; alas an unintentional synergy of those two awful models. Warpgate is definitely on the podium of things that make Protoss' skill floor so low.
On February 07 2014 08:08 Eliezar wrote: Its funny to see so many positive comments about War3 here. When War3 was out the general Broodwar response to it was how it was so inferior to Broodwar. You even heard a ton of that from Artosis and Tasteless in the first 4-5 GSL seasons always talking about how the former Broodwar players were just better than the War3 players and insulting the game.
Now you have the same thing. Sorry to say but StarCraft 2 is so much better than Broodwar it isn't funny. Although I think we took two steps in the wrong direction in HotS (Swarmhost and widowmines - oh my when they also detected...) just like Blizzard put in some bad unit choices when Broodwar came out (Corsair, Valk, Medic - healing rate, Lurker) as well. I think overall the game is better unlike Broodwar and the design team has done a great job.
Some things that StarCraft 2 really improved on Broodwar on:
1) Mobility of Terran and Protoss (this was very limited in Broodwar, game plays more fluidly and quicker). 2) Reducing Terran macro to LOL easy, Protoss to easy, and zerg to moderate. They also added in a skill element to each class to reward multitasking in the Mule, Chronoboost, and Larvae Inject, but the Larvae inject is more difficult than the other two.
I feel like it isn't a matter of better or worse games, because everyone will always have a different opinion. Having a more mobile Terran and Protoss army, for example, doesn't make SC2 better. It grays the areas that define races, forcing the designers to define the races in other ways (the macro-mechanics you mentioned + hocus-pocus, free units and tomfoolery now define the races). If you prefer that, it's on you, but please don't tell me apples are better than oranges.
There are problems with more things than just Swarmhosts and Widow-mines. Practically every new unit and mechanic for SC2 has had balancing issues, because their designs are so outrageously different from their Broodwar equivalent. Then there are units like the sentry, MULE and mothership-core that have no Broodwar equivalent. These are a nightmare for balance because they all seem to heavily affect the feel of the game. It doesn't always feel right and it almost never feels like Broodwar.
well, at least they gave reasons for what they did but I will always hold the opinion that WG should be changes so that there is more time with pylon distance and so that it takes less time to make units from gateway like terran players. ff, well, I dunno what to change for that, maybe that it's killable or smaller area or time etc...
On February 07 2014 08:08 Eliezar wrote: Its funny to see so many positive comments about War3 here. When War3 was out the general Broodwar response to it was how it was so inferior to Broodwar. You even heard a ton of that from Artosis and Tasteless in the first 4-5 GSL seasons always talking about how the former Broodwar players were just better than the War3 players and insulting the game.
Now you have the same thing. Sorry to say but StarCraft 2 is so much better than Broodwar it isn't funny. Although I think we took two steps in the wrong direction in HotS (Swarmhost and widowmines - oh my when they also detected...) just like Blizzard put in some bad unit choices when Broodwar came out (Corsair, Valk, Medic - healing rate, Lurker) as well. I think overall the game is better unlike Broodwar and the design team has done a great job.
Some things that StarCraft 2 really improved on Broodwar on:
1) Mobility of Terran and Protoss (this was very limited in Broodwar, game plays more fluidly and quicker). 2) Reducing Terran macro to LOL easy, Protoss to easy, and zerg to moderate. They also added in a skill element to each class to reward multitasking in the Mule, Chronoboost, and Larvae Inject, but the Larvae inject is more difficult than the other two. ...
this has to be a troll lol. While you're entitled to your opinion of which game is best, the fact that you think corsairs, medics' healing rate and lurkers are bad unit choices is cringe-worthy. Corsairs opened up more strat and made the Bisu build viable. Outside of that, we see disruption web used every once in a while so they have some use albeit limited in PvT. The unit is used almost every PvZ and corsair+reaver is such an entertaining strat to watch though it is hard to pull off. Medics are essential in TvZ and they likely increased the rate because it was slower than they had in mind. The new rate is fine as is considering just how strong cracklings and plague/dark swarm is late game.
As for lurkers, they make for the best micro situations. They are good to be offensive with as well as defensive and you can deal with them if you make the right decisions. Can't say much for valk although I've always liked the unit and while it's pretty strong in number, the sprite bug ensures that too many of them won't become OP(unintentional bug, glitches so unit doesn't fire lol so limit their #). After reading your improvements, especially #2, I'm almost confident you're trolling now XD
I'm pleasantly surprised to find myself quite happy with what David Kim said. Of course he's a man who knows how to talk and he can say what he wants about the oracle buff, I'm still convinced it was dumb shit, but overall I can see where he's heading and that doesn't seem too bad to me. Let's see what future holds in store but I feel more and more confident we'll reach again a rather satisfying state of the game.
On February 07 2014 09:21 BigFan wrote: well, at least they gave reasons for what they did but I will always hold the opinion that WG should be changes so that there is more time with pylon distance and so that it takes less time to make units from gateway like terran players. ff, well, I dunno what to change for that, maybe that it's killable or smaller area or time etc...
On February 07 2014 08:08 Eliezar wrote: Its funny to see so many positive comments about War3 here. When War3 was out the general Broodwar response to it was how it was so inferior to Broodwar. You even heard a ton of that from Artosis and Tasteless in the first 4-5 GSL seasons always talking about how the former Broodwar players were just better than the War3 players and insulting the game.
Now you have the same thing. Sorry to say but StarCraft 2 is so much better than Broodwar it isn't funny. Although I think we took two steps in the wrong direction in HotS (Swarmhost and widowmines - oh my when they also detected...) just like Blizzard put in some bad unit choices when Broodwar came out (Corsair, Valk, Medic - healing rate, Lurker) as well. I think overall the game is better unlike Broodwar and the design team has done a great job.
Some things that StarCraft 2 really improved on Broodwar on:
1) Mobility of Terran and Protoss (this was very limited in Broodwar, game plays more fluidly and quicker). 2) Reducing Terran macro to LOL easy, Protoss to easy, and zerg to moderate. They also added in a skill element to each class to reward multitasking in the Mule, Chronoboost, and Larvae Inject, but the Larvae inject is more difficult than the other two. ...
this has to be a troll lol. While you're entitled to your opinion of which game is best, the fact that you think corsairs, medics' healing rate and lurkers are bad unit choices is cringe-worthy. Corsairs opened up more strat and made the Bisu build viable. Outside of that, we see disruption web used every once in a while so they have some use albeit limited in PvT. The unit is used almost every PvZ and corsair+reaver is such an entertaining strat to watch though it is hard to pull off. Medics are essential in TvZ and they likely increased the rate because it was slower than they had in mind. The new rate is fine as is considering just how strong cracklings and plague/dark swarm is late game.
As for lurkers, they make for the best micro situations. They are good to be offensive with as well as defensive and you can deal with them if you make the right decisions. Can't say much for valk although I've always liked the unit and while it's pretty strong in number, the sprite bug ensures that too many of them won't become OP(unintentional bug, glitches so unit doesn't fire lol so limit their #). After reading your improvements, especially #2, I'm almost confident you're trolling now XD
I don't feel like forcefields are a problem for PvP, and having too many sentries will kill you in some situations. They're only a problem in non-mirror M/U because Terran can't use a thor reliably in TvP as an answer to FF and Zerg can't do anything until hive. FF isn't really a big deal for Protoss now, because with MSC, they can get high-ground vision anyway, or simply escape. The forcefield is one of those filthy design decisions that force Blizzard into coming up with a million stupid ideas to counteract. Once they come up empty, because it's still possible to deal with, they say, "ok, let's pretend that you can bait forcefields as an effective countermeasure and let's drag out the game so that the realistic solutions become available". Too much fail going on in the design to actually balance some of the shit.
On February 07 2014 09:27 [PkF] Wire wrote: I'm pleasantly surprised to find myself quite happy with what David Kim said. Of course he's a man who knows how to talk and he can say what he wants about the oracle buff, I'm still convinced it was dumb shit, but overall I can see where he's heading and that doesn't seem too bad to me. Let's see what future holds in store but I feel more and more confident we'll reach again a rather satisfying state of the game.
I don't know how this is a pleasant surprise. It's more of the same question-dodging and "we don't know" answers that we've become accustomed to.
On February 06 2014 19:51 dargul wrote: Lets poll and see if common players still trust Kim, or may be he is incompetent and must leave this game for god sake.
Poll: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
Yeh he is awsome. (29)
15%
He is slowpoke but ok. (23)
12%
He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (131)
66%
I don't care i play moba already. (17)
9%
200 total votes
Your vote: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer
(Vote): Yeh he is awsome. (Vote): He is slowpoke but ok. (Vote): He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (Vote): I don't care i play moba already.
I think result is pretty obvious. I hope that kim will notice this and change something in his behaviour...
I actually understood some of the reasons under the changes they carried on doing and some other changes they're reluctant to do. Doesn't mean I think everything's perfect but I feel the answers were more interesting than what you hint at.
On February 07 2014 06:46 Valikyr wrote: Even Protoss players don't like warp gates and forcefields (I am one of them). I just don't get why Blizzard is so proud about the design of that and won't ever think of changing something about them. The Starbow solution where not all units can be warped in is a great change that means warp gates has a drawback and you need to have both gateways and warp gates.
What if only zealots and DT's could be warped in to keep the unique harassment options with pylons and warp prisms but stalkers/sentries/HT's needs to be produced normally? Certainly makes macro a lot harder and doesn't take away any unique feel of the race.
I am a protoss player and I like force fields. Sorry to destroy your world view.
On February 07 2014 09:21 BigFan wrote: well, at least they gave reasons for what they did but I will always hold the opinion that WG should be changes so that there is more time with pylon distance and so that it takes less time to make units from gateway like terran players. ff, well, I dunno what to change for that, maybe that it's killable or smaller area or time etc...
On February 07 2014 08:08 Eliezar wrote: Its funny to see so many positive comments about War3 here. When War3 was out the general Broodwar response to it was how it was so inferior to Broodwar. You even heard a ton of that from Artosis and Tasteless in the first 4-5 GSL seasons always talking about how the former Broodwar players were just better than the War3 players and insulting the game.
Now you have the same thing. Sorry to say but StarCraft 2 is so much better than Broodwar it isn't funny. Although I think we took two steps in the wrong direction in HotS (Swarmhost and widowmines - oh my when they also detected...) just like Blizzard put in some bad unit choices when Broodwar came out (Corsair, Valk, Medic - healing rate, Lurker) as well. I think overall the game is better unlike Broodwar and the design team has done a great job.
Some things that StarCraft 2 really improved on Broodwar on:
1) Mobility of Terran and Protoss (this was very limited in Broodwar, game plays more fluidly and quicker). 2) Reducing Terran macro to LOL easy, Protoss to easy, and zerg to moderate. They also added in a skill element to each class to reward multitasking in the Mule, Chronoboost, and Larvae Inject, but the Larvae inject is more difficult than the other two. ...
this has to be a troll lol. While you're entitled to your opinion of which game is best, the fact that you think corsairs, medics' healing rate and lurkers are bad unit choices is cringe-worthy. Corsairs opened up more strat and made the Bisu build viable. Outside of that, we see disruption web used every once in a while so they have some use albeit limited in PvT. The unit is used almost every PvZ and corsair+reaver is such an entertaining strat to watch though it is hard to pull off. Medics are essential in TvZ and they likely increased the rate because it was slower than they had in mind. The new rate is fine as is considering just how strong cracklings and plague/dark swarm is late game.
As for lurkers, they make for the best micro situations. They are good to be offensive with as well as defensive and you can deal with them if you make the right decisions. Can't say much for valk although I've always liked the unit and while it's pretty strong in number, the sprite bug ensures that too many of them won't become OP(unintentional bug, glitches so unit doesn't fire lol so limit their #). After reading your improvements, especially #2, I'm almost confident you're trolling now XD
In what way did corsair 'open' up more strategies? I think its some fault in saying that. Corsair is mandatory in pvz. If you dont make corsairs u die.
Every unit that is added 'opens' up strategy.
Myself think its funnier to watch a protoss who doesnt go stargate. Relie more on archon to defend mutas etc(But it doesnt work anymore)
The medic healing rate is so powerful that its almost mandatory to go aoe. Or maybe its the marine. Or both. Is this 'good' design?
I like the medic, and i like the lurker but they both are hardcounter in broodwar more or less. Yes, i call medic hardcounter, cant found a better word.
On February 07 2014 05:42 Aserrin wrote: I'm pretty sure amateur players, pros and viewers are pretty aligned on what they want from the game. Blizzard wants something completely different and are acting corporatively, dismissing every other opinion and just giving automatic responses (like in this thread) justifying their awful decisions and planning.
Nope. Some people act like it's unanimously agreed that Brood War is a better game than Starcraft II for example, which is not the case. Some people act like everyone agrees that Swarm Hosts are boring, while this is not the case. Some people think everyone agrees when they say that Protoss is overpowered, but this isn't the case either. People really don't agree on much of anything. The people with the loudest voices sometimes make it seem like a lot of people are in agreement, but that's an illusion most of the time.
Not being unanimous =! Not having any kind of agreement
On February 07 2014 09:21 BigFan wrote: well, at least they gave reasons for what they did but I will always hold the opinion that WG should be changes so that there is more time with pylon distance and so that it takes less time to make units from gateway like terran players. ff, well, I dunno what to change for that, maybe that it's killable or smaller area or time etc...
On February 07 2014 08:08 Eliezar wrote: Its funny to see so many positive comments about War3 here. When War3 was out the general Broodwar response to it was how it was so inferior to Broodwar. You even heard a ton of that from Artosis and Tasteless in the first 4-5 GSL seasons always talking about how the former Broodwar players were just better than the War3 players and insulting the game.
Now you have the same thing. Sorry to say but StarCraft 2 is so much better than Broodwar it isn't funny. Although I think we took two steps in the wrong direction in HotS (Swarmhost and widowmines - oh my when they also detected...) just like Blizzard put in some bad unit choices when Broodwar came out (Corsair, Valk, Medic - healing rate, Lurker) as well. I think overall the game is better unlike Broodwar and the design team has done a great job.
Some things that StarCraft 2 really improved on Broodwar on:
1) Mobility of Terran and Protoss (this was very limited in Broodwar, game plays more fluidly and quicker). 2) Reducing Terran macro to LOL easy, Protoss to easy, and zerg to moderate. They also added in a skill element to each class to reward multitasking in the Mule, Chronoboost, and Larvae Inject, but the Larvae inject is more difficult than the other two. ...
this has to be a troll lol. While you're entitled to your opinion of which game is best, the fact that you think corsairs, medics' healing rate and lurkers are bad unit choices is cringe-worthy. Corsairs opened up more strat and made the Bisu build viable. Outside of that, we see disruption web used every once in a while so they have some use albeit limited in PvT. The unit is used almost every PvZ and corsair+reaver is such an entertaining strat to watch though it is hard to pull off. Medics are essential in TvZ and they likely increased the rate because it was slower than they had in mind. The new rate is fine as is considering just how strong cracklings and plague/dark swarm is late game.
As for lurkers, they make for the best micro situations. They are good to be offensive with as well as defensive and you can deal with them if you make the right decisions. Can't say much for valk although I've always liked the unit and while it's pretty strong in number, the sprite bug ensures that too many of them won't become OP(unintentional bug, glitches so unit doesn't fire lol so limit their #). After reading your improvements, especially #2, I'm almost confident you're trolling now XD
I don't feel like forcefields are a problem for PvP, and having too many sentries will kill you in some situations. They're only a problem in non-mirror M/U because Terran can't use a thor reliably in TvP as an answer to FF and Zerg can't do anything until hive. FF isn't really a big deal for Protoss now, because with MSC, they can get high-ground vision anyway, or simply escape. The forcefield is one of those filthy design decisions that force Blizzard into coming up with a million stupid ideas to counteract. Once they come up empty, because it's still possible to deal with, they say, "ok, let's pretend that you can bait forcefields as an effective countermeasure and let's drag out the game so that the realistic solutions become available". Too much fail going on in the design to actually balance some of the shit.
On February 07 2014 09:27 [PkF] Wire wrote: I'm pleasantly surprised to find myself quite happy with what David Kim said. Of course he's a man who knows how to talk and he can say what he wants about the oracle buff, I'm still convinced it was dumb shit, but overall I can see where he's heading and that doesn't seem too bad to me. Let's see what future holds in store but I feel more and more confident we'll reach again a rather satisfying state of the game.
I don't know how this is a pleasant surprise. It's more of the same question-dodging and "we don't know" answers that we've become accustomed to.
Zerg can get burrow and burrow move, which was buffed. Terran can medivac lift their units, which is why protoss players phase out sentries other than for guardian shield after medivacs hit the battlefield.
On February 07 2014 05:42 Aserrin wrote: I'm pretty sure amateur players, pros and viewers are pretty aligned on what they want from the game. Blizzard wants something completely different and are acting corporatively, dismissing every other opinion and just giving automatic responses (like in this thread) justifying their awful decisions and planning.
Nope. Some people act like it's unanimously agreed that Brood War is a better game than Starcraft II for example, which is not the case. Some people act like everyone agrees that Swarm Hosts are boring, while this is not the case. Some people think everyone agrees when they say that Protoss is overpowered, but this isn't the case either. People really don't agree on much of anything. The people with the loudest voices sometimes make it seem like a lot of people are in agreement, but that's an illusion most of the time.
Not being unanimous =! Not having any kind of agreement
But that isn't want you implied with your post. You implied that everyone pretty much agreed on what should be changed in SC2, which is not true. Some arguments may be sound and have merit. But to imply that the majority of players agree on one of these sound, meritorious arguments is simply incorrect.
Terran can medivac lift their units, which is why protoss players phase out sentries other than for guardian shield after medivacs hit the battlefield.
Every terran unit is ranged. Its hard to hit forcefield to trap em since the terran will keep the distance all the time. So i dont think its true what u say.
Terran can medivac lift their units, which is why protoss players phase out sentries other than for guardian shield after medivacs hit the battlefield.
Every terran unit is ranged. Its hard to hit forcefield to trap em since the terran will keep the distance all the time. So i dont think its true what u say.
Oh it absolutely is: I use forcefields all the time to trap terran units so that they cannot kite my zealots. Once medivacs are out though, they just lift and fly away, so I have to switch to charge zealots to close the gap.
As much as I detest Protoss and any PvX mu, I am filled with a sense of sweet justice seeing only 3 Terrans in this season's GSL Code S. Terrans completely stomped all over Zerg pre-WM nerf and Zergs were chastised for so much as alluding to the possibility of imbalance. We were suppressed for such a long time, it took so painfully long for that much-needed WM nerf to be implemented. We had 2 Zergs in the '13 WCS Global Finals and we had like 1/∞th the amount of whine then, as we do now from T-players.
just like Blizzard put in some bad unit choices when Broodwar came out (Corsair, Valk, Medic - healing rate, Lurker) as well. I think overall the game is better unlike Broodwar and the design team has done a great job.
You are funny. How in the world are medics bad when they allow stim and bio play- the most mobile of all Terran's strategies. And your other examples are equally bad. In addition to intimating that Protoss was not mobile? Arbiters? Recalls? Shuttles? That's what Protoss does is be mobile.
On February 07 2014 05:42 Aserrin wrote: I'm pretty sure amateur players, pros and viewers are pretty aligned on what they want from the game. Blizzard wants something completely different and are acting corporatively, dismissing every other opinion and just giving automatic responses (like in this thread) justifying their awful decisions and planning.
Nope. Some people act like it's unanimously agreed that Brood War is a better game than Starcraft II for example, which is not the case. Some people act like everyone agrees that Swarm Hosts are boring, while this is not the case. Some people think everyone agrees when they say that Protoss is overpowered, but this isn't the case either. People really don't agree on much of anything. The people with the loudest voices sometimes make it seem like a lot of people are in agreement, but that's an illusion most of the time.
Not being unanimous =! Not having any kind of agreement
But that isn't want you implied with your post. You implied that everyone pretty much agreed on what should be changed in SC2, which is not true. Some arguments may be sound and have merit. But to imply that the majority of players agree on one of these sound, meritorious arguments is simply incorrect.
Not really. Maybe that's because english isn't my native language, what I tried to say is that what players and viewers want from the game is closer between them, than comparing it to the developers' mindset: WCS format, Bnet 2.0, balance issues and procedures about them, even this Q&A. Did I explain myself now?
On February 07 2014 05:42 Aserrin wrote: I'm pretty sure amateur players, pros and viewers are pretty aligned on what they want from the game. Blizzard wants something completely different and are acting corporatively, dismissing every other opinion and just giving automatic responses (like in this thread) justifying their awful decisions and planning.
Nope. Some people act like it's unanimously agreed that Brood War is a better game than Starcraft II for example, which is not the case. Some people act like everyone agrees that Swarm Hosts are boring, while this is not the case. Some people think everyone agrees when they say that Protoss is overpowered, but this isn't the case either. People really don't agree on much of anything. The people with the loudest voices sometimes make it seem like a lot of people are in agreement, but that's an illusion most of the time.
Not being unanimous =! Not having any kind of agreement
But that isn't want you implied with your post. You implied that everyone pretty much agreed on what should be changed in SC2, which is not true. Some arguments may be sound and have merit. But to imply that the majority of players agree on one of these sound, meritorious arguments is simply incorrect.
Not really. Maybe that's because english isn't my native language, what I tried to say is that what players and viewers want from the game is closer between them, than comparing it to the developers' mindset. Did I explain myself now?
Terran can medivac lift their units, which is why protoss players phase out sentries other than for guardian shield after medivacs hit the battlefield.
Every terran unit is ranged. Its hard to hit forcefield to trap em since the terran will keep the distance all the time. So i dont think its true what u say.
Oh it absolutely is: I use forcefields all the time to trap terran units so that they cannot kite my zealots. Once medivacs are out though, they just lift and fly away, so I have to switch to charge zealots to close the gap.
Hmm. In general, terran bio kill toss without aoe Forcefield+zealot die to bio. Even with perfect surround. Now to put a better perspective. If its equal upgrades, equal cost, and supply lets say 45 vs 45. Maybe less to.
Later stages when toss have aoe, the colossous in particular. Forcefield is very good. But you sure forcefield can actually trap the bio here? Arent they to fast for the sentries?
And deathball vs deathball, when terran have ghost doesnt this also neglect sentries?
On February 07 2014 10:56 Aserrin wrote: Thanks for proving me wrong. I guess SC2's quality and popularity decay is just a coincidence then.
With that kind of answer I understand why you feel aligned to Kim and Blizzard.
SC2's quality is not in decline. SC2's popularity is, but that's completely normal and was expected. If you'll recall a few years ago, a number of people were stating that the explosion in events and popularity was unsustainable and was a bubble that was going to contract, and they were completely correct. When a game comes out, eventually some of the fans get bored and move on. HOTS drew in renewed interest, but that crashes too. When LOTV comes out, there will be more renewed interest.
SC2 is still absolutely the largest RTS in the world. RTS was always going to be a smaller ESPORT then MOBA, it just was.
So, no, it's not just a coincidence that the popularity is in decline, but it is not at all the fault of the blizzard developers at all. It was completely expected and normal for it to.
And you are still wrong about people agreeing. Everyone has their own opinions: it just so happens that some people are louder than others and like to talk as if everyone agrees with them. They don't.
Terran can medivac lift their units, which is why protoss players phase out sentries other than for guardian shield after medivacs hit the battlefield.
Every terran unit is ranged. Its hard to hit forcefield to trap em since the terran will keep the distance all the time. So i dont think its true what u say.
Oh it absolutely is: I use forcefields all the time to trap terran units so that they cannot kite my zealots. Once medivacs are out though, they just lift and fly away, so I have to switch to charge zealots to close the gap.
Hmm. In general, terran bio kill toss without aoe Forcefield+zealot die to bio. Even with perfect surround. Now to put a better perspective. If its equal upgrades, equal cost, and supply lets say 45 vs 45. Maybe less to.
Later stages when toss have aoe, the colossous in particular. Forcefield is very good. But you sure forcefield can actually trap the bio here? Arent they to fast for the sentries?
And deathball vs deathball, when terran have ghost doesnt this also neglect sentries?
Actually, gateway units without AoE do great until medivacs are out. It's medivacs that make AoE required, because they basically make terran units unkillable until you have a huge amount of DPS, and gateway units do not have high DPS, they have high HP (Consider: the stalker is the army unit with the lowest DPS in the game for cost). I trap bio units with forcefields all the time, and you see it in pro games too, if they attack before medivacs are out. It's become rarer in pro games because now terrans don't attack until medivacs, so there is no reason to attempt forcefield traps.
And yes, sentries are phased out once medivacs are out, you only use them for guardian shield, so ghosts negating them becomes irrelevant. Protoss doesn't usually make more than 2 sentries in the matchup because forcefield isn't very important anymore in PvT.
And Terran bio, if it's just running from you, will outrun forcefields. If it is trying to kite and protoss is micro'ing correctly (not letting zealots get ahead of the rest of the army), then either they have to back off entirely or get trapped. Range on forcefield is 9, range of a marauder is 6, if the bio unit is in range to hit the sentry, you can be more than easily trapped.
Why is RTS necessarily doomed to be smaller than MOBA games, especially given that SC2 is pretty much the only big RTS atm, whereas there are a couple of MOBA titles?
On February 07 2014 11:26 Wombat_NI wrote: Why is RTS necessarily doomed to be smaller than MOBA games, especially given that SC2 is pretty much the only big RTS atm, whereas there are a couple of MOBA titles?
The market for MOBA is big enough to get split between League and Dota and still have a huge community each. RTS on the other hand, just lacks the market size, there is just no other company willing to invest in RTS market anymore because of this reason. the sequel of the popular RTS titles, like red alert and age of empire all have pretty much failed horribly
On February 07 2014 07:01 aZealot wrote: I'm a Protoss player and I like WG and Forcefield. As to Starbow, the restriction on Dragoon (and Dragoon only) warp-in is one of the more sillier features found in a Starcraft game. I think it a crude change to a cool mechanic.
What about fungals?
I think fungals are fine.
Welp I suppose we are of different viewpoints then. Mind you it's not so much I absolutely hate movement restricting spells, it's just that SC2 has no counter checks in place to stop any snowballing. What's wrong with exploring ways to make spells more dynamic? Phoenixes have absolute immobilization, but with their own restrictions. HotS made fungal a projectile (could be different, but an obvious improvement over WOL). Pipe dream but would it really be that bad if (#s rebalanced) sentries had say channeling forcefields?
I don't see anything wrong at all in looking at ways to make spells more interesting. The HOTS fungal is so much better than the WOL fungal. If looking at a tweaked FF is on Blizzard's agenda, I'd have no problem with it. (Personally, I don't think FF as a channeling ability is a sound idea but having it HP based or lowering the duration are interesting suggestions I have read elsewhere.) That said, I do think it is rather low on Blizzard's list at the moment, if it figures there at all. FF is one of those abilities that players generally appear to have gotten used to. But, I'd have no problem with tweaking FF (and Sentries).
If you really want to rework FF fundamentally, or remove it completely, you'd have to look at a lot of other inter-related things. For example, the Zerg economy (which necessitates FF from Sentries) or Protoss reliance on a melee unit for early/midgame interactions with Terran ranged units (which means GS and FF from Sentries). So, a fundamental change to the unit or the ability will not happen (as with WG). Nor do I think it necessary for gameplay (or map-making reasons) either.
I do dislike Time Warp though. Maybe, it's the consistency aspect of it which makes me uncomfortable that it does not affect friendly units. Increasing the energy cost is the right move. I also hope Blizzard consider making it an upgrade at Core.
"For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible?"
They try to bait them out because if they land you can't micro against them. I think Blizzard thinks "baiting" falls under the category of micro. That's a mind game, not micro. Am I wrong here?
On February 07 2014 12:57 Emuking wrote: "For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible?"
They try to bait them out because if they land you can't micro against them. I think Blizzard thinks "baiting" falls under the category of micro. That's a mind game, not micro. Am I wrong here?
Does it involve micro to move the lings? If yes, then it is micro.
DK answers as expected...and pretty much tells the truth...
That said...I do want to see Terran buffed...they are having a terrible time these days...But like the panel on Meta all agreed on it is 3 things:
1) Toss players have figured out how to play the race. 2) There are more high end Toss players than high end Terran players these days. 3) Terran has far less options in TvP than Toss.
On February 07 2014 12:57 Emuking wrote: "For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible?"
They try to bait them out because if they land you can't micro against them. I think Blizzard thinks "baiting" falls under the category of micro. That's a mind game, not micro. Am I wrong here?
Does it involve micro to move the lings? If yes, then it is micro.
Terran can medivac lift their units, which is why protoss players phase out sentries other than for guardian shield after medivacs hit the battlefield.
Every terran unit is ranged. Its hard to hit forcefield to trap em since the terran will keep the distance all the time. So i dont think its true what u say.
Oh it absolutely is: I use forcefields all the time to trap terran units so that they cannot kite my zealots. Once medivacs are out though, they just lift and fly away, so I have to switch to charge zealots to close the gap.
Hmm. In general, terran bio kill toss without aoe Forcefield+zealot die to bio. Even with perfect surround. Now to put a better perspective. If its equal upgrades, equal cost, and supply lets say 45 vs 45. Maybe less to.
Later stages when toss have aoe, the colossous in particular. Forcefield is very good. But you sure forcefield can actually trap the bio here? Arent they to fast for the sentries?
And deathball vs deathball, when terran have ghost doesnt this also neglect sentries?
bio vs FF/zealots depends on the supply. At low supply, FF/zealots is actually pretty good vs bio. It is when the bio ball gets big enough where zealots are killed very quickly where protoss start losing.
On February 07 2014 12:57 Emuking wrote: "For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible?"
They try to bait them out because if they land you can't micro against them. I think Blizzard thinks "baiting" falls under the category of micro. That's a mind game, not micro. Am I wrong here?
Does it involve micro to move the lings? If yes, then it is micro.
An interesting definition of micro from a protoss player.
On February 07 2014 12:57 Emuking wrote: "For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible?"
They try to bait them out because if they land you can't micro against them. I think Blizzard thinks "baiting" falls under the category of micro. That's a mind game, not micro. Am I wrong here?
Does it involve micro to move the lings? If yes, then it is micro.
An interesting definition of micro from a protoss player.
And your version would have terran as the only race that has to micro? The other two are a-move races.
Terran can medivac lift their units, which is why protoss players phase out sentries other than for guardian shield after medivacs hit the battlefield.
Every terran unit is ranged. Its hard to hit forcefield to trap em since the terran will keep the distance all the time. So i dont think its true what u say.
Oh it absolutely is: I use forcefields all the time to trap terran units so that they cannot kite my zealots. Once medivacs are out though, they just lift and fly away, so I have to switch to charge zealots to close the gap.
Hmm. In general, terran bio kill toss without aoe Forcefield+zealot die to bio. Even with perfect surround. Now to put a better perspective. If its equal upgrades, equal cost, and supply lets say 45 vs 45. Maybe less to.
Later stages when toss have aoe, the colossous in particular. Forcefield is very good. But you sure forcefield can actually trap the bio here? Arent they to fast for the sentries?
And deathball vs deathball, when terran have ghost doesnt this also neglect sentries?
bio vs FF/zealots depends on the supply. At low supply, FF/zealots is actually pretty good vs bio. It is when the bio ball gets big enough where zealots are killed very quickly where protoss start losing.
Not just Zealots, at low supply you have some fun micro battles with stalkers v marines especially. Not really such a thing anymore, but back in WoL with aggressive 2rax builds vs the conservative 3 gate expos, or the aggressive variants of the 3 gate expo those were quite fun.
On February 07 2014 12:57 Emuking wrote: "For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible?"
They try to bait them out because if they land you can't micro against them. I think Blizzard thinks "baiting" falls under the category of micro. That's a mind game, not micro. Am I wrong here?
Does it involve micro to move the lings? If yes, then it is micro.
An interesting definition of micro from a protoss player.
And your version would have terran as the only race that has to micro? The other two are a-move races.
Last time I checked zerg can't a move into a Terran mine field/tank line with bio nor could zerg A move into storm and colossi, don't even know why people bother with whole "a move thing. Protoss can literally a move in some situations lol.
On February 07 2014 12:57 Emuking wrote: "For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible?"
They try to bait them out because if they land you can't micro against them. I think Blizzard thinks "baiting" falls under the category of micro. That's a mind game, not micro. Am I wrong here?
I'm not sure it matters. People bait out Stim for similar reasons. The point he was trying to make is that there are strategies to make FF interesting on both sides. As a strategy game, that's what you want. The question in my mind however is if FF's are a fun mechanic or not.
On February 07 2014 12:57 Emuking wrote: "For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible?"
They try to bait them out because if they land you can't micro against them. I think Blizzard thinks "baiting" falls under the category of micro. That's a mind game, not micro. Am I wrong here?
I'm not sure it matters. People bait out Stim for similar reasons. The point he was trying to make is that there are strategies to make FF interesting on both sides. As a strategy game, that's what you want. The question in my mind however is if FF's are a fun mechanic or not.
Anything that kills you is usually not seen as fun for you at the time being. Meanwhile few Protoss will say that they feel bad when they get really good FFs off. I definitely believe that there could be improvements made to FFs, but it's far from being "more unfun than being kited to death" or the end of the world as some people here put it.
On February 07 2014 06:46 Valikyr wrote: Even Protoss players don't like warp gates and forcefields (I am one of them). I just don't get why Blizzard is so proud about the design of that and won't ever think of changing something about them. The Starbow solution where not all units can be warped in is a great change that means warp gates has a drawback and you need to have both gateways and warp gates.
What if only zealots and DT's could be warped in to keep the unique harassment options with pylons and warp prisms but stalkers/sentries/HT's needs to be produced normally? Certainly makes macro a lot harder and doesn't take away any unique feel of the race.
I am a protoss player and I like force fields. Sorry to destroy your world view.
On February 07 2014 06:46 Valikyr wrote: Even Protoss players don't like warp gates and forcefields (I am one of them). I just don't get why Blizzard is so proud about the design of that and won't ever think of changing something about them. The Starbow solution where not all units can be warped in is a great change that means warp gates has a drawback and you need to have both gateways and warp gates.
What if only zealots and DT's could be warped in to keep the unique harassment options with pylons and warp prisms but stalkers/sentries/HT's needs to be produced normally? Certainly makes macro a lot harder and doesn't take away any unique feel of the race.
I am a protoss player and I like force fields. Sorry to destroy your world view.
Didn't say every protoss player dislikes them.
then don't get why they won't change it. There is only so many times that DK can say he likes the baiting around them and they are not doing huge design changes in general.
On February 07 2014 12:57 Emuking wrote: "For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible?"
They try to bait them out because if they land you can't micro against them. I think Blizzard thinks "baiting" falls under the category of micro. That's a mind game, not micro. Am I wrong here?
I'm not sure it matters. People bait out Stim for similar reasons. The point he was trying to make is that there are strategies to make FF interesting on both sides. As a strategy game, that's what you want. The question in my mind however is if FF's are a fun mechanic or not.
I think his statement doesn't make any sense. How can you micro against something that is not even on the map yet? What do you do once it is?
Baiting stims or storms doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything, baiting forcefields on the other hand is not even about the FFs themselves anymore but buying time, catching reinforcements, killing pylons/probe making pylons. It's pretty much like siege tanks in that regard where the opponent tries to make you siege up. If they are sieged you'd never attack. IIRC it was Rain vs Solar yesterday on Yeonsu where Solar successfully baited FFs out of Rain so that his 4 spines would finish before Rain arrives. You don't need FFs to have this kind of player interaction.
It appears to me that Blizzard doesn't consider very specific situations where their problematic units/abilities truly shine as is apparent in DKs answer to if current SH usage is intended.
On February 07 2014 10:56 Aserrin wrote: Thanks for proving me wrong. I guess SC2's quality and popularity decay is just a coincidence then.
With that kind of answer I understand why you feel aligned to Kim and Blizzard.
Even with all the "popularity decay", current SC2 is still the second most popular RTS ever...and competitive/ladder SC2 is probably the most popular RTS outside of Korea ever
People tend to forget that SC:BW outside Korea and WC3 had tiny base of players that actually played the actual RTS, and the vast majority only cared about single player campaigns and custom maps.
Granted, the SC2 Arcade is lacking in several ways, but having a hundred thousand more people playing customs doesn't do much for the competitive side.
On February 07 2014 12:57 Emuking wrote: "For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible?"
They try to bait them out because if they land you can't micro against them. I think Blizzard thinks "baiting" falls under the category of micro. That's a mind game, not micro. Am I wrong here?
I'm not sure it matters. People bait out Stim for similar reasons. The point he was trying to make is that there are strategies to make FF interesting on both sides. As a strategy game, that's what you want. The question in my mind however is if FF's are a fun mechanic or not.
I think his statement doesn't make any sense. How can you micro against something that is not even on the map yet? What do you do once it is?
Baiting stims or storms doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything, baiting forcefields on the other hand is not even about the FFs themselves anymore but buying time, catching reinforcements, killing pylons/probe making pylons. It's pretty much like siege tanks in that regard where the opponent tries to make you siege up. If they are sieged you'd never attack. IIRC it was Rain vs Solar yesterday on Yeonsu where Solar successfully baited FFs out of Rain so that his 4 spines would finish before Rain arrives. You don't need FFs to have this kind of player interaction.
It appears to me that Blizzard doesn't consider very specific situations where their problematic units/abilities truly shine as is apparent in DKs answer to if current SH usage is intended.
You bait forcefields so the attack will have less energy when it arrives. Same goes for baiting storms: so there will be fewer storms, or stim, so there will be less medivac energy or less unit health.
On February 07 2014 12:57 Emuking wrote: "For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible?"
They try to bait them out because if they land you can't micro against them. I think Blizzard thinks "baiting" falls under the category of micro. That's a mind game, not micro. Am I wrong here?
I'm not sure it matters. People bait out Stim for similar reasons. The point he was trying to make is that there are strategies to make FF interesting on both sides. As a strategy game, that's what you want. The question in my mind however is if FF's are a fun mechanic or not.
I think his statement doesn't make any sense. How can you micro against something that is not even on the map yet? What do you do once it is?
Baiting stims or storms doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything, baiting forcefields on the other hand is not even about the FFs themselves anymore but buying time, catching reinforcements, killing pylons/probe making pylons. It's pretty much like siege tanks in that regard where the opponent tries to make you siege up. If they are sieged you'd never attack. IIRC it was Rain vs Solar yesterday on Yeonsu where Solar successfully baited FFs out of Rain so that his 4 spines would finish before Rain arrives. You don't need FFs to have this kind of player interaction.
It appears to me that Blizzard doesn't consider very specific situations where their problematic units/abilities truly shine as is apparent in DKs answer to if current SH usage is intended.
Of course you need FFs for that. If that was a Zerg or Terran he would just march forward because he wouldn't have to do Forcefielmicro which hinders him from advancing. Also forcefield baiting is 90% about the FFs. You want to bait them out, so that when you engage he has much less of them. You can't beat a good Protoss player that can forcefield your army off 2-3times during a combat, but you can very well overwhelm one with two attacks that only has one last row of forcefields left.
And
How can you micro against something that is not even on the map yet? What do you do once it is?
is just pidgeonholing it. Then call it "micro against the sentry" which is on the map.
I believe that forcefields became a core part of Protoss race and that somehow limits how maps can be made, deteriorating different playstyles that could potentially inject more variety to the game, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be altered at this stage, sometimes its frustrating to let Protoss get too close to my bases and watch my units become worthless by a couple of well placed forcefields, but instead of getting mad I try to (as DK said) bait them in the middle of the map and then position my army to engage, it might not solve all the problems but it adds micro (whether it might 'feel fun' or not) and I'm fine with that. Burrowed roaches are very useable and I like the concept of dealing with forcefields this way. New units could in a way circumvent the position and that forcefield is right now in innovative ways.
Warpgate mechanic is another hot topic that I think is awesome, it really adds a different feel to Protoss as a race, on the other hand, I really liked what Starbow did with that mechanic, adding a unit that can only be produced out of the gateway feels right, I'd love for Protoss players to change between Warpgate and Gateway depending on their builds for LOTV.
Anyway, I think it was expected for him to do this somewhat fluffy answers but in reality there's not going to be any drastic changes until LOTV comes out, but it's a good time to address what could be added to the game to make it "stable" now and for the next expansion. There are many negative people, but I believe that LOTV will be exciting and major problems will be dealt with, have a little faith people. In the end, if the game turns out to be awesome, it'll be your gain from a player and spectator view.
His answer concerning deathballs says all i needed to read to not to want to read more. It clearly shows they don't know how to do better than this. Until these people that are in charge of SC2 balance and mechanics are fired, SC2 is a lost cause. I'm out.
On February 07 2014 12:57 Emuking wrote: "For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible?"
They try to bait them out because if they land you can't micro against them. I think Blizzard thinks "baiting" falls under the category of micro. That's a mind game, not micro. Am I wrong here?
I'm not sure it matters. People bait out Stim for similar reasons. The point he was trying to make is that there are strategies to make FF interesting on both sides. As a strategy game, that's what you want. The question in my mind however is if FF's are a fun mechanic or not.
I think his statement doesn't make any sense. How can you micro against something that is not even on the map yet? What do you do once it is?
Baiting stims or storms doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything, baiting forcefields on the other hand is not even about the FFs themselves anymore but buying time, catching reinforcements, killing pylons/probe making pylons. It's pretty much like siege tanks in that regard where the opponent tries to make you siege up. If they are sieged you'd never attack. IIRC it was Rain vs Solar yesterday on Yeonsu where Solar successfully baited FFs out of Rain so that his 4 spines would finish before Rain arrives. You don't need FFs to have this kind of player interaction.
It appears to me that Blizzard doesn't consider very specific situations where their problematic units/abilities truly shine as is apparent in DKs answer to if current SH usage is intended.
Of course you need FFs for that. If that was a Zerg or Terran he would just march forward because he wouldn't have to do Forcefielmicro which hinders him from advancing. Also forcefield baiting is 90% about the FFs. You want to bait them out, so that when you engage he has much less of them. You can't beat a good Protoss player that can forcefield your army off 2-3times during a combat, but you can very well overwhelm one with two attacks that only has one last row of forcefields left.
Of course you want to bait FFs whenever possible but I just think that is a bonus (and mistake from P) when Protoss marches overly aggressive across the map. You also want more time and I think this is much more important than baiting FFs. With more time you can get more units out/spines up so that you can force Protoss into an unfavorable position, possibly surround him and make him spend even more sentry energy than a little group of lings could.
I compared FF baiting with forcing siege tanks to siege up. You didn't address that at all. When Terran is using tanks they have the exact same problem as when a group of sentries is moving across the map. The opponent will try to slow him. The only difference is sentries are not on a timer where their effectiveness drops to almost 0.
How can you micro against something that is not even on the map yet? What do you do once it is?
is just pidgeonholing it. Then call it "micro against the sentry" which is on the map.
That is not correct. FFs are separate objects which make terrain temporarily impassable. How do you micro on impassable terrain? Would you call it micro if I built a gateway there?
On February 07 2014 17:43 KOtical wrote: constant action through bore(swarm)hosts... well i never laughed so hard xD
Watch Flash vs DRG or Soulkey vs INnoVation and cry for being so ignorant.
Right now that is very much the exception though. You can find more fun games from the BL/Infestor era then you can now with SH.
they should at least make locusts and their attack animation look cooler...locusts just look so dull
I don't know. My problem with them is that battles between Locusts and P/T just aren't satisfying to watch at all, because they are just free units that i know Zerg couldn't care less about. At least ITerrans cost energy. The only time this battles can feel satisfying is when P/T can either kill the SH, and this should never really happen, or when you can advance enough to kill a Zerg base/ secure your own base or at least put the Zerg under heavy pressure.
In most of the games i've seen though Terran advances so slow that Zerg can just bank all the resources in the World while Terran needs to add lots of Ravens, leading to those terrible slow games.
No matter how much action there is, free units just don't make the battles fun for me.
I'd like to see small changes to locust that might help in ZvP... Maybe (and I'm usually against speed changes) they could change the on/off creep speed so it's easier for colossus based armies to kite (off creep). Another thought would be to change the attack animation so they have to actually stop/set up to shoot instead of the instant shot (think hellion vs marine).
On February 07 2014 17:43 KOtical wrote: constant action through bore(swarm)hosts... well i never laughed so hard xD
Agreed, action only occurs of both sides have something to lose and to win. With Locusts engaging a sieged tank line for five minutes, only the terran has something to lose and only the zerg has something to win. And if the terran knows what he is doing, nobody will be losing or winning anything...
They really need to switch kim out of sc2. Enough damage has been done imo. Bring in a fresh face and salvage what's left with the waning popularity of this game.
On February 07 2014 21:15 lessQQmorePEWPEW wrote: They really need to switch kim out of sc2. Enough damage has been done imo. Bring in a fresh face and salvage what's left with the waning popularity of this game.
It's really not his fault that the design of the game makes it so difficult to balance. He's probably one of the more qualified people available, and killing his livelihood to take a chance with someone else isn't exactly fair to him considering he hasn't done anything overtly wrong.
Blizzard needs to seriously take a look at the flaws in SC2, not necessarily from the heartless, statistical approach of number-balancing, but the approach to up the excitement of the game (without using terrible terrible damage) and spread out the playing field by some means other than making units that are physically bigger than others... Capitol ships, for example, are large but don't spread out the field, because they stack. Colossi are big, but imagine if they didn't stand over the army. Same thing with broods and BCs. Why do these units feel more boring? Because they don't take much/any skill to use and their stacking tends to make the damage output in a concentrated area VERY high. It's like a fat curtain gets spread over the battle and the loser's army dies leaving the viewers wondering wtf happened. Spreading out the army footprints will easily alleviate some of the quickness of battles, but Blizzard is so very proud of the way armies move like a blob.
On February 07 2014 21:15 lessQQmorePEWPEW wrote: They really need to switch kim out of sc2. Enough damage has been done imo. Bring in a fresh face and salvage what's left with the waning popularity of this game.
It's really not his fault that the design of the game makes it so difficult to balance. He's probably one of the more qualified people available, and killing his livelihood to take a chance with someone else isn't exactly fair to him considering he hasn't done anything overtly wrong.
Blizzard needs to seriously take a look at the flaws in SC2, not necessarily from the heartless, statistical approach of number-balancing, but the approach to up the excitement of the game (without using terrible terrible damage) and spread out the playing field by some means other than making units that are physically bigger than others... Capitol ships, for example, are large but don't spread out the field, because they stack. Colossi are big, but imagine if they didn't stand over the army. Same thing with broods and BCs. Why do these units feel more boring? Because they don't take much/any skill to use and their stacking tends to make the damage output in a concentrated area VERY high. It's like a fat curtain gets spread over the battle and the loser's army dies leaving the viewers wondering wtf happened. Spreading out the army footprints will easily alleviate some of the quickness of battles, but Blizzard is so very proud of the way armies move like a blob.
He is probably not one of the more qualified people available given his record and he IS still responsible for all the poor decisions he took. If he had troubles with the design of the game he could have done something about that too.
I agree with the parts about statistics and number balances.
I have a (troll) question for David Kim.
Warning! Don't click this spoiler if you are a sensitive person.
On February 07 2014 21:15 lessQQmorePEWPEW wrote: They really need to switch kim out of sc2. Enough damage has been done imo. Bring in a fresh face and salvage what's left with the waning popularity of this game.
It's really not his fault that the design of the game makes it so difficult to balance. He's probably one of the more qualified people available, and killing his livelihood to take a chance with someone else isn't exactly fair to him considering he hasn't done anything overtly wrong.
Blizzard needs to seriously take a look at the flaws in SC2, not necessarily from the heartless, statistical approach of number-balancing, but the approach to up the excitement of the game (without using terrible terrible damage) and spread out the playing field by some means other than making units that are physically bigger than others... Capitol ships, for example, are large but don't spread out the field, because they stack. Colossi are big, but imagine if they didn't stand over the army. Same thing with broods and BCs. Why do these units feel more boring? Because they don't take much/any skill to use and their stacking tends to make the damage output in a concentrated area VERY high. It's like a fat curtain gets spread over the battle and the loser's army dies leaving the viewers wondering wtf happened. Spreading out the army footprints will easily alleviate some of the quickness of battles, but Blizzard is so very proud of the way armies move like a blob.
I would really like to ask Blizzard who came up with the design of most of these units. Almost everything about this game is badly designed and doesn't stick to the tried and true rules of RTS.
It's either Dustin Browder who thinks everthing is fine as long as units are "COOOOOOOL" or David Kim who could be in charge of selecting units from the singleplayer into multi. Either way, they are both incompetent in my opinion and have no business designing or balancing anything.
Seriously, what kind of game do we have now?
1. 200/200 craft 2. Basetrade craft 3. Deathball craft 4. Badly designed units craft
I've thought for a long time now that if I had to choose between the interface limits of BW that got in the way of gameplay or the 200/200 limit that becomes a deciding factor in every game (having resources but can't spend) that leads to all-ins or boring drawn out games... I'd take the interface limits of BW.
Seriously, today's GSL games were disgusting. I feel sorry for gomTV and spoTV and all the people who work hard to organize stuff around this game.
On February 07 2014 21:15 lessQQmorePEWPEW wrote: They really need to switch kim out of sc2. Enough damage has been done imo. Bring in a fresh face and salvage what's left with the waning popularity of this game.
It's really not his fault that the design of the game makes it so difficult to balance. He's probably one of the more qualified people available, and killing his livelihood to take a chance with someone else isn't exactly fair to him considering he hasn't done anything overtly wrong.
Blizzard needs to seriously take a look at the flaws in SC2, not necessarily from the heartless, statistical approach of number-balancing, but the approach to up the excitement of the game (without using terrible terrible damage) and spread out the playing field by some means other than making units that are physically bigger than others... Capitol ships, for example, are large but don't spread out the field, because they stack. Colossi are big, but imagine if they didn't stand over the army. Same thing with broods and BCs. Why do these units feel more boring? Because they don't take much/any skill to use and their stacking tends to make the damage output in a concentrated area VERY high. It's like a fat curtain gets spread over the battle and the loser's army dies leaving the viewers wondering wtf happened. Spreading out the army footprints will easily alleviate some of the quickness of battles, but Blizzard is so very proud of the way armies move like a blob.
After his track record in WoL and HoTS and judging by this most recent Q&A I very much doubt he is one of the most qualified people to look at balance, in fact I'd say he is the last qualified to do so. Killing his livelihood for the sake of SC2 is a very small sacrifice I'd make considering he is potentially killing the livelihood of hundreds of other pro gamers and thousands of aspiring pros, hell if he had any sense of decency or any love for SC2 he should have resigned out of shame for all the damage he has done so far.
On February 07 2014 21:15 lessQQmorePEWPEW wrote: They really need to switch kim out of sc2. Enough damage has been done imo. Bring in a fresh face and salvage what's left with the waning popularity of this game.
Him and Browder. Get Rob Pardo on it and maybe LotV will have a chance.
TvP back in WoL feels glorious now that I think about all the builds I could use back then. I still remember that it used to be frustfrating but comparing it to the state of the match-up currently it just feels much superior. (Terran PoV)
About rts vs moba, two years ago it was commonly accepted that lol could never succeed as an esports because mobas are difficult to spectate. Funny how times change.
On February 07 2014 21:15 lessQQmorePEWPEW wrote: They really need to switch kim out of sc2. Enough damage has been done imo. Bring in a fresh face and salvage what's left with the waning popularity of this game.
It's really not his fault that the design of the game makes it so difficult to balance. He's probably one of the more qualified people available, and killing his livelihood to take a chance with someone else isn't exactly fair to him considering he hasn't done anything overtly wrong.
Blizzard needs to seriously take a look at the flaws in SC2, not necessarily from the heartless, statistical approach of number-balancing, but the approach to up the excitement of the game (without using terrible terrible damage) and spread out the playing field by some means other than making units that are physically bigger than others... Capitol ships, for example, are large but don't spread out the field, because they stack. Colossi are big, but imagine if they didn't stand over the army. Same thing with broods and BCs. Why do these units feel more boring? Because they don't take much/any skill to use and their stacking tends to make the damage output in a concentrated area VERY high. It's like a fat curtain gets spread over the battle and the loser's army dies leaving the viewers wondering wtf happened. Spreading out the army footprints will easily alleviate some of the quickness of battles, but Blizzard is so very proud of the way armies move like a blob.
I would really like to ask Blizzard who came up with the design of most of these units. Almost everything about this game is badly designed and doesn't stick to the tried and true rules of RTS.
As long as you are aware that most designs are just remodeled BW units that got adapted with balance and the improved controls in mind.
Still think they made the game a tad bit to fast and instead of slowing it down decreased the killer stuff if someone pays no attention. Would have slowed the game down a bit and sticked with the strong AoEs.
But I actually do hope they bring in the possibility to add a selection limit to units in the editor. The limit actually makes defense against harassment easier, since your opponent usually only sends in group selection, so its easier to choose the right amount of units. Nothing that helps the main game, but thanks to the mod extension everyone could test Sc2 out with it.
On February 07 2014 08:08 Eliezar wrote: Its funny to see so many positive comments about War3 here. When War3 was out the general Broodwar response to it was how it was so inferior to Broodwar. You even heard a ton of that from Artosis and Tasteless in the first 4-5 GSL seasons always talking about how the former Broodwar players were just better than the War3 players and insulting the game.
Now you have the same thing. Sorry to say but StarCraft 2 is so much better than Broodwar it isn't funny. Although I think we took two steps in the wrong direction in HotS (Swarmhost and widowmines - oh my when they also detected...) just like Blizzard put in some bad unit choices when Broodwar came out (Corsair, Valk, Medic - healing rate, Lurker) as well. I think overall the game is better unlike Broodwar and the design team has done a great job.
Some things that StarCraft 2 really improved on Broodwar on:
1) Mobility of Terran and Protoss (this was very limited in Broodwar, game plays more fluidly and quicker). 2) Reducing Terran macro to LOL easy, Protoss to easy, and zerg to moderate. They also added in a skill element to each class to reward multitasking in the Mule, Chronoboost, and Larvae Inject, but the Larvae inject is more difficult than the other two.
The strange thing in this thread is people saying removing warp gate would make protoss macro harder. No it would be insanely easier. Pressing '3' and 'z' while watching your army and letting troops rally to you (the terran model) is easier and safer while pressing '1' '1' to get to your pylon and then wargate and spam mouse click while holding down 'z' is quite more demanding and requires your screen to be off.
This thread makes me wonder how people can have such strong balance demands from David Kim and yet not even understand the most basic fundamentals of how the game works.
Terran is tougher micro, easier macro than Toss. Toss is easier micro, tougher macro than Terran. Simplistically as an overarching theme. There are obviously ways to play each that change that (the weird Thor attack move rush with scvs on autorepair is obviously less micro intensive --- and yes Artosis streamed himself losing to that in a GSL qualifier)
Oh man. Nice troll. You had me here. Wait are you serious ?... I'll never play bw again because I feel the flow is so much better in sc2 than in bw, but to say that blizz put some bad units choice in BW is just retarded. Plain retarded. It made the game way more dynamic and balanced. Please refrain from posting anymore because it's quite obvious you're a war3's fan / bw's hater.
Edit : or a die hard starcraft's fan that never got the courage to get good @ bw and keep owning scrubs while massing units. Maybe you should've stayed in bgh.
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?"
Thank you Dapper_Cad, Whitewing, Plansix, and all others that keep a positive state of mind. This is real discussion. I honestly get rather tired of poo flinging sometimes.
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?"
Thank you Dapper_Cad, Whitewing, Plansix, and all others that keep a positive state of mind. This is real discussion. I honestly get rather tired of poo flinging sometimes.
We do what we can. Sadly there are people who sill believe that do thy throw enough poo at Blizzard, it will somehow make them listen.
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?"
Thank you Dapper_Cad, Whitewing, Plansix, and all others that keep a positive state of mind. This is real discussion. I honestly get rather tired of poo flinging sometimes.
We do what we can. Sadly there are people who sill believe that do thy throw enough poo at Blizzard, it will somehow make them listen.
And what will you achieve? You're only gonna produce toned down and watered-out criticism in times when drastic measures are needed.
By your definition I am probably a poo flinger. However, I don't expect changes because people are whining. I expect changes because people are quitting the game. The whining is just a symptom.
edit: I might pick up StarBow though. Those new spider mines look awesome.
On February 07 2014 23:15 nojem wrote: It worked with Diablo 3 and Jay Wilson. Being constructive and nice hasn't for 5(?) years.
But it wasn't the poop flinging that changed D3. It was a well thought out argument and constructive criticism from all sides. Blizzard will likely try improve SC2 in the next expansion, but you can't expect them to crowd source those changes.
But demanding people be fired or pulled off the game never changed anything.
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?"
Thank you Dapper_Cad, Whitewing, Plansix, and all others that keep a positive state of mind. This is real discussion. I honestly get rather tired of poo flinging sometimes.
We do what we can. Sadly there are people who sill believe that do thy throw enough poo at Blizzard, it will somehow make them listen.
And what will you achieve? You're only gonna produce toned down and watered-out criticism in times when drastic measures are needed.
By your definition I am probably a poo flinger. However, I don't expect changes because people are whining. I expect changes because people are quitting the game. The whining is just a symptom.
edit: I might pick up StarBow though. Those new spider mines look awesome.
Well because I am so positive and a fan of MLG, they asked me to be a beta tester for their video player Xbox app. I also told them that they should focus on VODs, since that is a thing that twitch sucks at and I care about a lot. And when I complain about something or point out a problem, I normally get a response on twitter.
Do I change the world? Not likely. Am I listened to more than someone posting how much MLG sucked and needs to get their act together? Always.
On February 07 2014 23:15 nojem wrote: It worked with Diablo 3 and Jay Wilson. Being constructive and nice hasn't for 5(?) years.
But it wasn't the poop flinging that changed D3. It was a well thought out argument and constructive criticism from all sides. Blizzard will likely try improve SC2 in the next expansion, but you can't expect them to crowd source those changes.
But demanding people be fired or pulled off the game never changed anything.
Actually, that generally brings in a lot of change. When someone is incompetent in a position of authority, there's generally a period of constructive criticism. When that fails, people lose trust in that person. Almost no matter what they will do afterwards, winning back people's trust is not going to happen. And that's the case with David Kim - he has slipped one too many times, made unanimous decisions and given reasoning to justify these in ways which the majority of people consider unrepresentative of the facts. While I'm generally pretty damn positive about people, I can see why a lot of people think he should go now. I might be leaning towards seeing what he'll do in the coming weeks now that he has started pushing out balance patches, test maps and Q&A sessions, but it's not unreasonable for people to say "too little, too late."
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?"
Thank you Dapper_Cad, Whitewing, Plansix, and all others that keep a positive state of mind. This is real discussion. I honestly get rather tired of poo flinging sometimes.
We do what we can. Sadly there are people who sill believe that do thy throw enough poo at Blizzard, it will somehow make them listen.
And what will you achieve? You're only gonna produce toned down and watered-out criticism in times when drastic measures are needed.
By your definition I am probably a poo flinger. However, I don't expect changes because people are whining. I expect changes because people are quitting the game. The whining is just a symptom.
edit: I might pick up StarBow though. Those new spider mines look awesome.
It was me who mentioned "poo flinging", just so you don't blame Plansix. I didn't mean to insult you, and I don't even know if you are a "poo flinger" as per my own definition. You are quite critical in some of the posts I've seen of you, and very acidic on others, but you've also done some factual discussion. (Thanks TL post search!). I just personally have this feeling that many people come here to vent the fact that they dont like a game that the are somehow "supposed to like". And all the fault is Blizzard's or David Kim's. None of them seems to reason that maybe the game Blizzard is making is not for them (which is fine, seriously), or that even though they liked SC:BW when they were younger, they are now not as easily impressed, or any other reasoning at all.
I think (just an opinion) that this group of people are really vocal and get the idea that people that like, watch and/or play the game don't really exist. That everyone agrees with them. That they are being personally victimized by "those horrible designers/developers".
Look, this is a great game, for many people. There's about 10.000 people watching it whenever I check twitch, and much more during big tournaments (sometimes up to 100.000 concurrently!). Those people might not be here talking, but they exist.
On the actual AMA:
Dayvie publicly accepted during the HOTS launch that they got better at balancing the game during the game (something anyone could reasonably expect). Ever since then he's been communicating more often than in WOL, and this was a short and limited session, yes, but also the first time he does anything like this. I like AMAs and would love to see him talk to the community more often, so I try to be positive to encourage it.
And yeah, backlash can help a developer understand when they do something people don't like. I just feel like the Starcraft community goes WAY negative, all of the time. This time we didn't hear anything too crazy. The most important part about the AMA was the fact that they were making one, what they said just reinforced what we knew. And STILL people are negative. I don't get it.
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?"
Thank you Dapper_Cad, Whitewing, Plansix, and all others that keep a positive state of mind. This is real discussion. I honestly get rather tired of poo flinging sometimes.
We do what we can. Sadly there are people who sill believe that do thy throw enough poo at Blizzard, it will somehow make them listen.
And what will you achieve? You're only gonna produce toned down and watered-out criticism in times when drastic measures are needed.
By your definition I am probably a poo flinger. However, I don't expect changes because people are whining. I expect changes because people are quitting the game. The whining is just a symptom.
edit: I might pick up StarBow though. Those new spider mines look awesome.
Well because I am so positive and a fan of MLG, they asked me to be a beta tester for their video player Xbox app. I also told them that they should focus on VODs, since that is a thing that twitch sucks at and I care about a lot. And when I complain about something or point out a problem, I normally get a response on twitter.
Do I change the world? Not likely. Am I listened to more than someone posting how much MLG sucked and needs to get their act together? Always.
You got to test a beta video player for Xbox. Oh the privilege, lol.
Money makes companies change their minds. That is why I don't play or watch SC2 anymore.
*Chuckles* Everyone here is whining about balance which is obviously not the problem at hand.
Its the design of the game that needs to be drastically changed. SC2 is a young boy that climaxes too quickly and I'm of course talking about its action aspect.
In the end, if the game is genuinely fun to enjoy, one fan of such game shouldn't never be worried about its future.
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?"
Thank you Dapper_Cad, Whitewing, Plansix, and all others that keep a positive state of mind. This is real discussion. I honestly get rather tired of poo flinging sometimes.
We do what we can. Sadly there are people who sill believe that do thy throw enough poo at Blizzard, it will somehow make them listen.
And what will you achieve? You're only gonna produce toned down and watered-out criticism in times when drastic measures are needed.
By your definition I am probably a poo flinger. However, I don't expect changes because people are whining. I expect changes because people are quitting the game. The whining is just a symptom.
edit: I might pick up StarBow though. Those new spider mines look awesome.
Well because I am so positive and a fan of MLG, they asked me to be a beta tester for their video player Xbox app. I also told them that they should focus on VODs, since that is a thing that twitch sucks at and I care about a lot. And when I complain about something or point out a problem, I normally get a response on twitter.
Do I change the world? Not likely. Am I listened to more than someone posting how much MLG sucked and needs to get their act together? Always.
You got to test a beta video player for Xbox. Oh the privilege, lol.
Money makes companies change their minds. That is why I don't play or watch SC2 anymore.
To each their own. I find being a fan gets a better response than saying "I'm not watching till you shape up and do what I want", but maybe it will work for you. I would rather be listened to and get a response, even if it's not exactly what I want.
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?"
Thank you Dapper_Cad, Whitewing, Plansix, and all others that keep a positive state of mind. This is real discussion. I honestly get rather tired of poo flinging sometimes.
We do what we can. Sadly there are people who sill believe that do thy throw enough poo at Blizzard, it will somehow make them listen.
And what will you achieve? You're only gonna produce toned down and watered-out criticism in times when drastic measures are needed.
By your definition I am probably a poo flinger. However, I don't expect changes because people are whining. I expect changes because people are quitting the game. The whining is just a symptom.
edit: I might pick up StarBow though. Those new spider mines look awesome.
Well because I am so positive and a fan of MLG, they asked me to be a beta tester for their video player Xbox app. I also told them that they should focus on VODs, since that is a thing that twitch sucks at and I care about a lot. And when I complain about something or point out a problem, I normally get a response on twitter.
Do I change the world? Not likely. Am I listened to more than someone posting how much MLG sucked and needs to get their act together? Always.
You got to test a beta video player for Xbox. Oh the privilege, lol.
Money makes companies change their minds. That is why I don't play or watch SC2 anymore.
With all due respect, sir: by the following reasoning "Money makes companies change their minds. That is why I don't play or watch SC2 anymore." you should stop doing anything you usually do at all. Do you like sports? Movies? Music? Anything else? Food, clothing and houses? Drinking water and electricity? Because all of those are made by companies who change their minds when money is involved. That doesn't make them or their products bad.
On February 06 2014 18:36 Zealously wrote: [quote]
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?"
Thank you Dapper_Cad, Whitewing, Plansix, and all others that keep a positive state of mind. This is real discussion. I honestly get rather tired of poo flinging sometimes.
We do what we can. Sadly there are people who sill believe that do thy throw enough poo at Blizzard, it will somehow make them listen.
And what will you achieve? You're only gonna produce toned down and watered-out criticism in times when drastic measures are needed.
By your definition I am probably a poo flinger. However, I don't expect changes because people are whining. I expect changes because people are quitting the game. The whining is just a symptom.
edit: I might pick up StarBow though. Those new spider mines look awesome.
Well because I am so positive and a fan of MLG, they asked me to be a beta tester for their video player Xbox app. I also told them that they should focus on VODs, since that is a thing that twitch sucks at and I care about a lot. And when I complain about something or point out a problem, I normally get a response on twitter.
Do I change the world? Not likely. Am I listened to more than someone posting how much MLG sucked and needs to get their act together? Always.
You got to test a beta video player for Xbox. Oh the privilege, lol.
Money makes companies change their minds. That is why I don't play or watch SC2 anymore.
With all due respect, sir: by the following reasoning "Money makes companies change their minds. That is why I don't play or watch SC2 anymore." you should stop doing anything you usually do at all. Do you like sports? Movies? Music? Anything else? Food, clothing and houses? Drinking water and electricity? Because all of those are made by companies who change their minds when money is involved. That doesn't make them or their products bad.
On February 06 2014 20:19 Dapper_Cad wrote: [quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
[quote]
European PvZ is especially broken for some reason.
[quote]
David Kim is watching swarm host games he likes (Proleague?)
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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?"
Thank you Dapper_Cad, Whitewing, Plansix, and all others that keep a positive state of mind. This is real discussion. I honestly get rather tired of poo flinging sometimes.
We do what we can. Sadly there are people who sill believe that do thy throw enough poo at Blizzard, it will somehow make them listen.
And what will you achieve? You're only gonna produce toned down and watered-out criticism in times when drastic measures are needed.
By your definition I am probably a poo flinger. However, I don't expect changes because people are whining. I expect changes because people are quitting the game. The whining is just a symptom.
edit: I might pick up StarBow though. Those new spider mines look awesome.
Well because I am so positive and a fan of MLG, they asked me to be a beta tester for their video player Xbox app. I also told them that they should focus on VODs, since that is a thing that twitch sucks at and I care about a lot. And when I complain about something or point out a problem, I normally get a response on twitter.
Do I change the world? Not likely. Am I listened to more than someone posting how much MLG sucked and needs to get their act together? Always.
You got to test a beta video player for Xbox. Oh the privilege, lol.
Money makes companies change their minds. That is why I don't play or watch SC2 anymore.
With all due respect, sir: by the following reasoning "Money makes companies change their minds. That is why I don't play or watch SC2 anymore." you should stop doing anything you usually do at all. Do you like sports? Movies? Music? Anything else? Food, clothing and houses? Drinking water and electricity? Because all of those are made by companies who change their minds when money is involved. That doesn't make them or their products bad.
You are right.
It is called a free market.
And they are free to ignore you if they think you are to difficult to please. Or you are lost in the din of millions of negative people on the Internet. It why no one reads YouTube comments.
On February 06 2014 18:36 Zealously wrote: [quote]
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?"
Thank you Dapper_Cad, Whitewing, Plansix, and all others that keep a positive state of mind. This is real discussion. I honestly get rather tired of poo flinging sometimes.
We do what we can. Sadly there are people who sill believe that do thy throw enough poo at Blizzard, it will somehow make them listen.
And what will you achieve? You're only gonna produce toned down and watered-out criticism in times when drastic measures are needed.
By your definition I am probably a poo flinger. However, I don't expect changes because people are whining. I expect changes because people are quitting the game. The whining is just a symptom.
edit: I might pick up StarBow though. Those new spider mines look awesome.
Well because I am so positive and a fan of MLG, they asked me to be a beta tester for their video player Xbox app. I also told them that they should focus on VODs, since that is a thing that twitch sucks at and I care about a lot. And when I complain about something or point out a problem, I normally get a response on twitter.
Do I change the world? Not likely. Am I listened to more than someone posting how much MLG sucked and needs to get their act together? Always.
You got to test a beta video player for Xbox. Oh the privilege, lol.
Money makes companies change their minds. That is why I don't play or watch SC2 anymore.
With all due respect, sir: by the following reasoning "Money makes companies change their minds. That is why I don't play or watch SC2 anymore." you should stop doing anything you usually do at all. Do you like sports? Movies? Music? Anything else? Food, clothing and houses? Drinking water and electricity? Because all of those are made by companies who change their minds when money is involved. That doesn't make them or their products bad.
I don't think you got what he meant. He's saying that not giving companies your money is what makes companies change their behaviour. For example, if Sony finds that people are not buying their laptops anymore (because Apple and Lenovo seem to attract more customers), they will change their laptops (or quit making laptops entirely...). In the end, a company is accountable to its shareholders who expect profits.
Of course, being a game developer, they are more likely to make a new game, than to change the way they approach an old one. I can imagine that being a whole lot more fun to do for everyone involved. Expansions allow them to be a bit more creative, but...
Blizzard clearly isn't very good at it, but they do try. Clues are things such as the one hour limit that Blizzard sets on all appearances by David Kim ensuring that he is always able to control the discussion, another is the language that David Kim uses to cover all of his bases and say nothing in particular. Blizzard is not looking for an honest and open discussion, for them these opportunities to talk with the community are seen as PR events that have to be approached in a strategical manner.
On February 06 2014 20:19 Dapper_Cad wrote: [quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
[quote]
European PvZ is especially broken for some reason.
[quote]
David Kim is watching swarm host games he likes (Proleague?)
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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?"
Thank you Dapper_Cad, Whitewing, Plansix, and all others that keep a positive state of mind. This is real discussion. I honestly get rather tired of poo flinging sometimes.
We do what we can. Sadly there are people who sill believe that do thy throw enough poo at Blizzard, it will somehow make them listen.
And what will you achieve? You're only gonna produce toned down and watered-out criticism in times when drastic measures are needed.
By your definition I am probably a poo flinger. However, I don't expect changes because people are whining. I expect changes because people are quitting the game. The whining is just a symptom.
edit: I might pick up StarBow though. Those new spider mines look awesome.
Well because I am so positive and a fan of MLG, they asked me to be a beta tester for their video player Xbox app. I also told them that they should focus on VODs, since that is a thing that twitch sucks at and I care about a lot. And when I complain about something or point out a problem, I normally get a response on twitter.
Do I change the world? Not likely. Am I listened to more than someone posting how much MLG sucked and needs to get their act together? Always.
You got to test a beta video player for Xbox. Oh the privilege, lol.
Money makes companies change their minds. That is why I don't play or watch SC2 anymore.
With all due respect, sir: by the following reasoning "Money makes companies change their minds. That is why I don't play or watch SC2 anymore." you should stop doing anything you usually do at all. Do you like sports? Movies? Music? Anything else? Food, clothing and houses? Drinking water and electricity? Because all of those are made by companies who change their minds when money is involved. That doesn't make them or their products bad.
I don't think you got what he meant. He's saying that not giving companies your money is what makes companies change their behaviour. For example, if Sony finds that people are not buying their laptops anymore (because Apple and Lenovo seem to attract more customers), they will change their laptops (or quit making laptops entirely...). In the end, a company is accountable to its shareholders who expect profits.
Of course, being a game developer, they are more likely to make a new game, than to change the way they approach an old one. I can imagine that being a whole lot more fun to do for everyone involved. Expansions allow them to be a bit more creative, but...
Oh, fair enough. As you say, I took it the wrong way. My mistake.
On February 07 2014 23:15 nojem wrote: It worked with Diablo 3 and Jay Wilson. Being constructive and nice hasn't for 5(?) years.
But it wasn't the poop flinging that changed D3. It was a well thought out argument and constructive criticism from all sides. Blizzard will likely try improve SC2 in the next expansion, but you can't expect them to crowd source those changes.
But demanding people be fired or pulled off the game never changed anything.
Actually, that generally brings in a lot of change. When someone is incompetent in a position of authority, there's generally a period of constructive criticism. When that fails, people lose trust in that person. Almost no matter what they will do afterwards, winning back people's trust is not going to happen. And that's the case with David Kim - he has slipped one too many times, made unanimous decisions and given reasoning to justify these in ways which the majority of people consider unrepresentative of the facts. While I'm generally pretty damn positive about people, I can see why a lot of people think he should go now. I might be leaning towards seeing what he'll do in the coming weeks now that he has started pushing out balance patches, test maps and Q&A sessions, but it's not unreasonable for people to say "too little, too late."
Seconded. There's been extensive constructive criticism, but it's been ignored, which means its new blood time (there's a lot of other BS in there too, but intelligent people can filter arguments easily enough). What actually comes back as reasoning from DK often makes little to no sense, there's a disconnect between what he says they want to achieve and what the changes actually will. For example he often makes changes to strengthen units late game, but does this by removing upgrades. Which only buffs rushing that unit, but it keeps being done over and over. Banshee, Reaper, Oracle, Ghost... they only time they actually did that right was the phoenix range, a late game upgrade...
The issue stands that they balance for winrates when they need to be redesigning things that force the game one way. You can't balance or introduce fun with maps because of the way early game Protoss works and how the races need very different terran for a good engagement. But there's no budget redesign and DB likes all his big cool unit concepts that don't really fit in the SC universe... or an interesting to watch RTS. Hero units have no place here but they keep trying, MSC/Mothership and the double down Thor keeps remaking an appearance in his plans.
But there's clearly no budget for anything more than changing numbers. Sadly as there's plenty of options to monetise that haven't been taken, the mechanics are already there with the alternate models etc, paid name change was due since the beta and would take some coder a couple of days tops and I'm sure would have netted vastly more than hoping those desperate enough buy another copy. Instead they put more manhours into a pointless XP system that gives you all the saleable stuff for free if you play more than 30 games...
There you go, reasoned and no doubt being ignored. And lets be honest its a space without a serious competitor, the only other RTS I see is the planetary annihilation thing and it isn't really the same sort of RTS. I'm wishing someone turns out an RTS to fill the void, or at least provide the competition SC2 needs to force it to adapt (just the threat of Dominion Storm kicked SC1 into greatness starcraft-orcs-in-space-go-down-in-flames). Valve maybes?
On February 08 2014 00:20 Grumbels wrote: Clues are things such as the one hour limit that Blizzard sets on all appearances by David Kim ensuring that he is always able to control the discussion
Are you seriously surprised at this? Or think this is some big conspiracy? Oh please...I mean, look at this thread alone.
When the community whines as much as this one does then there is a huge incentive to want to keep it controlled and to the point. Otherwise its liable to devolve into the cesspit that threads regularly devolve into around here with people yelling "plz Blizzard fire David Kim because he's a baddie" and "omg Blizzard fail, ded gaem" and a bunch of people declaring that "Blizzard should just do x, y and z because I say so and everyone agrees with me".
He has a job to do. He can't spend his entire day dealing with people complaining ad infinitum about the same things that have been brought up time after time when he's already stated their internal team's views on the issue. Limiting it to an hour is an obvious step to keep things on track and concise. No more, no less.
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?
Part of the reason why balance is never addressed is Blizzard likes having very assymetric play. They view the terrans constantly all-inning vs toss as evidence of balance(I.E. maru/ty). While i agree with white that it wouldn't hurt to have a few toss and zerg to counter balance.
Anytime that someone says that something is imbalanced they say- its the map, or your not good enough to discuss balance. Blizzard does everything it can to disgrace the communities interest in the game, by "controlling" every aspect of the game. I hate the idea that blizzard only meets one-on-one to discuss any matter. Having a public discussion at least they could address the community rather than just leave it as its not really an issue, or saying that we had x discussion with pros, unciteable, and didn't feel like it was an issue. With a public disucssion with a large group of players, then I'd find it perfectly clear they feelings to the people who's livelihood depends on it, to say to them, contrary to what you think,our high level pvproleague and 3 Terran code S GSL have winrates/representation that are a great indicator of balance.
I Just like the Fact that after all this time when Terran players have complained they said oh well Korean Terrans are doing good you just need to learn how to play like they do...... well Korean Terrans are doing aweful so what is it now? We just need to learn how NA Terrans play now? LOL! I honestly think protoss hasn't dominated in the NA scene because they havn't caught on to the way Korean Protoss Players are playing.....
I still would like to know how Nerfing tw to 100 energy has stopped the 100% safe Greedy play from protoss or has given terran an option to play greedy.....
On February 08 2014 00:20 Grumbels wrote: Clues are things such as the one hour limit that Blizzard sets on all appearances by David Kim ensuring that he is always able to control the discussion
Are you seriously surprised at this? Or think this is some big conspiracy? Oh please...I mean, look at this thread alone.
When the community whines as much as this one does then there is a huge incentive to want to keep it controlled and to the point. Otherwise its liable to devolve into the cesspit that threads regularly devolve into around here with people yelling "plz Blizzard fire David Kim because he's a baddie" and "omg Blizzard fail, ded gaem" and a bunch of people declaring that "Blizzard should just do x, y and z because I say so and everyone agrees with me".
He has a job to do. He can't spend his entire day dealing with people complaining ad infinitum about the same things that have been brought up time after time when he's already stated their internal team's views on the issue. Limiting it to an hour is an obvious step to keep things on track and concise. No more, no less.
Haha. I'm sure David Kim could spare an additional hour of his time to honestly engage the community if he really wanted to*. Ghostcrawler had infinitely more community interaction back during the WoW days. I don't know why you have this bizarre accusation that I'm a conspiracy theorist, don't you think it's quite obvious that this limit on DK's appearances very conveniently always prevents him from thoroughly discussing anything?
* as evidenced by the fact that when he does appear on talkshows or AMA's he is very reluctant to say anything. He doesn't seem to have a real commitment to community interaction.
It just feels like DK does not want to see the problems in the game anymore. We have got the statistics, we all know how PvT looks in the tournaments and the win rates form Code A. We dont see Terrans getting sent out in PL at all (with very few exceptions). We have countless of PvP finals during the last tournaments. I quote Dayshi from his twitter today:
M_Dayshi @M_Dayshi 51 min 6 ladder games, 6 protoss, 6 looses, 6 deffierent builds, 6 reasons to blame fucking TvP6 reasons to not enjoy the game and take a big break
Stardust replies: Son Suk hee @StardustSC2 48 min
@M_Dayshi i agree pvt is broken but how to fix.. will be super hard to fix
I think at this point everyone quite much agrees the match up is broken (or atleast strongly P favoured). And DKs fix to this is to make Ghosts spawn with a free upgrade even though I think most of the community can tell that this clearly is not the problem with the state of the game.
Personally I lose interest for the game more and more each day. I play Terran and my ladder experience just aint fun anymore. I do not enjoy TvP at all. I play the same build, every single gamle. Reaper expand. Sometimes I do reactor Reaper expand. Then I worry for 7 minutes for Oracles, DTs, Blink-All Ins, Fast 3 Nexuses, 8 Gates and a lot of more things. And then if I survive this I feel like I get to play Starcraft again. The thing is that the space between 0-15 minutes PvT is the same thing over and over again. And this has not to do with just balance - but it is so extremly one sided and boring. And truth be told, TvP is by far my most played match up in Master League.
What I want to hear from David Kim is that he sees that Terran has very few options in the start and adress this by trying to either limit the amount of options Protoss have or give terran more vital options that is not a coin flip build to lose vs DTs, Oracles, Blink or what not. Sure you can mix your builds up but when cutting the smallest corner you make yourself extremy vurnerable to a lot of various Protoss builds.
Instead what we get is a free Ghost Upgrade. I seriously dont know if to laugh or cry. It adresses none of the issuses in the matchup. Sure it makes Terran a bit stronger. But the effect it will have is similar to drop some paint on the ocean. Sure there will be more of it there but it wont make any visible difference in the long run.
I sincerly hope Blizzard acts and makes this game more enjoyable for me as Terran player or I am afraid I will not play this game that I have loved since its release for many more weeks. I survived during the BL/Infestor era but this time I just dont have any strenght left to continue laddering. I dont find it fun anymore :/
On February 08 2014 00:20 Grumbels wrote: Clues are things such as the one hour limit that Blizzard sets on all appearances by David Kim ensuring that he is always able to control the discussion
Are you seriously surprised at this? Or think this is some big conspiracy? Oh please...I mean, look at this thread alone.
When the community whines as much as this one does then there is a huge incentive to want to keep it controlled and to the point. Otherwise its liable to devolve into the cesspit that threads regularly devolve into around here with people yelling "plz Blizzard fire David Kim because he's a baddie" and "omg Blizzard fail, ded gaem" and a bunch of people declaring that "Blizzard should just do x, y and z because I say so and everyone agrees with me".
He has a job to do. He can't spend his entire day dealing with people complaining ad infinitum about the same things that have been brought up time after time when he's already stated their internal team's views on the issue. Limiting it to an hour is an obvious step to keep things on track and concise. No more, no less.
This. Blizzard designers hear the arguments, they don't agree, they make the game. The end.
On February 08 2014 01:30 Grumbels wrote: Haha. I'm sure David Kim could spare an additional hour of his time to honestly engage the community if he really wanted to*. Ghostcrawler had infinitely more community interaction back during the WoW days. I don't know why you have this bizarre accusation that I'm a conspiracy theorist, don't you think it's quite obvious that this limit on DK's appearances very conveniently always prevents him from thoroughly discussing anything?
Blizzard has heard the people who want to change warp gate, they explained why they won't, and repeating the same arguments over and over again is not discussion, it's wasting everyone's time.
If you don't agree with Blizzard, well, that sucks. But do you really think David Kim is going to say something like "I wasn't convinced by your arguments when I studied them the first 50 times, but that 51st repetition totally changed my mind"?
On February 08 2014 01:34 Glorfindel! wrote: Stardust replies: Son Suk hee @StardustSC2 48 min
@M_Dayshi i agree pvt is broken but how to fix.. will be super hard to fix
Honestly it seems rather trivial to balance TvP... Without even touching much to Photon Overcharge, there's a lot to do. Just some examples of what they could do:
Protoss General Warp-in time increased to 8 seconds, up from 5.
Mothership Core Hit points decreased to 60/105, down from 60/135. Sight range decreased to 9, down from 14. Photon Overcharge casting range decreased to 7, down from 10.
Oracle Movement speed decreased to 3.5, down from 4.
Storm Search time increased to 140 seconds, up from 110.
Tempest Damage to Massive air targets decreased to 50 (+5), down from 80 (+5).
Terran Stim Search time decreased to 140 seconds, down from 170.
Ghost Cost decreased to 175/100, down from 200/100.
Reaper Sight range increased to 10, up from 9.
Ghost Academy Moebius Reactor reintroduced. Tactical Nukes now deal 750 damage, up from 500, in the center of the radius.
And if you want some mech as a bonus:
Tanks Now deal +15 damage to Massive targets while in Siege Mode.
Immortal Hardened shield has been reworked. It still reduces damage from 10-20 to 10, but any attack dealing more than 20 damage is halved instead of reduced to 10.
On February 08 2014 01:34 Glorfindel! wrote: Stardust replies: Son Suk hee @StardustSC2 48 min
@M_Dayshi i agree pvt is broken but how to fix.. will be super hard to fix
Honestly it seems rather trivial to balance TvP... Without even touching much to Photon Overcharge, there's a lot to do. Just some examples of what they could do:
Protoss General Warp-in time increased to 8 seconds, up from 5.
Mothership Core Hit points decreased to 60/105, down from 60/135. Sight range decreased to 9, down from 14. Photon Overcharge casting range decreased to 7, down from 10.
Oracle Movement speed decreased to 3.5, down from 4.
Storm Search time increased to 140 seconds, up from 110.
Tempest Damage to Massive air targets decreased to 50 (+5), down from 80 (+5).
Terran Stim Search time decreased to 140 seconds, down from 170.
Ghost Cost decreased to 175/100, down from 200/100.
Reaper Sight range increased to 10, up from 9.
Ghost Academy Moebius Reactor reintroduced. Tactical Nukes now deal 750 damage, up from 500, in the center of the radius.
And if you want some mech as a bonus:
Tanks Now deal +15 damage to Massive targets while in Siege Mode.
Immortal Hardened shield has been reworked. It still reduces damage from 10-20 to 10, but any attack dealing more than 20 damage is halved instead of reduced to 10.
LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time. It's a good thing you aren't in charge.
On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote: LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time.
Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes.
The current situation with toss isn't any different from late WoL zerg. They are the foreigner success race, the only race with which foreigner can take games of / win against top koreans. Blizzard will ALWAYS do baby steps when it comes to nerfing such race.
On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote: LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time.
Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes.
We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one.
On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote: LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time.
Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes.
We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one.
You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right?
Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright.
On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote: LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time.
Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes.
We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one.
You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right?
Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright.
Please explain us why a GM player wouldn't be biased. I don't really see the logic behind this. Actually, the more one player is good, the more it's likely that he would be biased, since he probably plays a lot -> he probably cares a lot about winning or losing. There's really nothing to discuss in that post, maybe some single changes would be good, but all together it's just ridiculous.
On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote: LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time.
Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes.
We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one.
You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right?
Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright.
Please explain us why a GM player wouldn't be biased. I don't really see the logic behind this. Actually, the more one player is good, the more it's likely that he would be biased, since he probably plays a lot -> he probably cares a lot about winning or losing. There's really nothing to discuss in that post, maybe some single changes would be good, but all together it's just ridiculous.
That's not how it works. He made balance suggestions, so instead of asserting he's biased (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) those suggestions should be addressed. I, too, am wondering how they will wreck PvT; the lack of interaction with what he's said makes me think there really isn't an issue outside of the (so far) knee jerk reactions.
On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote: LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time.
Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes.
We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one.
You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right?
Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright.
Please explain us why a GM player wouldn't be biased. I don't really see the logic behind this. Actually, the more one player is good, the more it's likely that he would be biased, since he probably plays a lot -> he probably cares a lot about winning or losing. There's really nothing to discuss in that post, maybe some single changes would be good, but all together it's just ridiculous.
I agree with TheDwf that something like this has to happened to actually give terran a fighting chance. As of now we might be witnessing the biggest imbalance since the days of WoL-beta. You just don't fix that by changing Ghost energy or making a single unit a bit weaker for Protoss. As long as the MSC Photon Overcharge not is touched the problem with Protoss being able to go for almost any build and be completely safe behind extreme greed - making small changes on oracle speed and similar will just be a drop in the ocean of the Terran dilemmas.
Therefore, I find it terrifying to see the patch notes and find that Ghost now spawn with 25 more energy... O.o
And David Kim, in this Q&A seemed to have no solution or even highlighting the problem at all. I wonder how many more weeks/months the scene can take this before Terran players start to leave.
On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote: LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time.
Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes.
We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one.
You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right?
Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright.
Idra was a grand master Zerg and trained in Korea, what is your point? Do you think that Nani'wa gives unbiased balqnce suggestions? Why would being skilled at the game make you less bias?
Also the changes are to drastic. I will agree that Terran needs a boost, better scouting and more early options, but those are to much.
Whitewing and Plansix, the two people I'd like to have balancing the game... I would love getting every fact and complaint responded to with patronising and trolling.
Edit: And IdrA, when still a top foreigner, predicted a number of imbalances, including ghosts getting nerfed almost a year before they were, alongside obvious ones like infestors getting nerfed. So, yes, being good at the game does give you good knowledge of the game. Actually arguing his point with facts and examples makes it much better, of course.
On February 08 2014 03:07 Ghanburighan wrote: Whitewing and Plansix, the two people I'd like to have balancing the game... I would love getting every fact and complaint responded to with patronising and trolling.
Edit: And IdrA, when still a top foreigner, predicted a number of imbalances, including ghosts getting nerfed almost a year before they were, alongside obvious ones like infestors getting nerfed. So, yes, being good at the game does give you good knowledge of the game. Actually arguing his point with facts and examples makes it much better, of course.
I would just go full Icefrog and never respond. But I wouldn't be as consertive as DK either. I have always felt they treated SC2 as to "precious" and don't do enough crazy stuff.
On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote: LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time.
Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes.
We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one.
You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right?
Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright.
Please explain us why a GM player wouldn't be biased. I don't really see the logic behind this. Actually, the more one player is good, the more it's likely that he would be biased, since he probably plays a lot -> he probably cares a lot about winning or losing. There's really nothing to discuss in that post, maybe some single changes would be good, but all together it's just ridiculous.
That's not how it works. He made balance suggestions, so instead of asserting he's biased (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) those suggestions should be addressed. I, too, am wondering how they will wreck PvT; the lack of interaction with what he's said makes me think there really isn't an issue outside of the (so far) knee jerk reactions.
Suggestions deserve to be addressed only if they have some motivations behind them. Saying "please increase colossus damage from 30 to 100" can also be considered as a balance suggestion, except it is dumb so no one would waste his time answering and explaining why it's wrong. Obviously, "protoss won too many games lately, the terran players shall be avenged, must nerf everything so that they won't be able to win a single game from now on" isn't a valid motivation.
On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote: LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time.
Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes.
We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one.
You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right?
Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright.
Please explain us why a GM player wouldn't be biased. I don't really see the logic behind this. Actually, the more one player is good, the more it's likely that he would be biased, since he probably plays a lot -> he probably cares a lot about winning or losing. There's really nothing to discuss in that post, maybe some single changes would be good, but all together it's just ridiculous.
Perhaps you should take a look at his suggestions in depth instead of screaming imba immediately.
Probably only bad change would be the warp in change, a redesign would be better, something along the lines of making regular GW produce faster and making warp gates CD longer or warp in longer, though he was on the right track.
A WG redesign would make toss more interesting, it would reintroduce defenders advantage into the MU, it would make PvP more stable, which would lead to more flexibility in the nerfing of the MSC and would introduce a interesting new multi-tasking and macro oriented dynamic where toss has to chose between and rotate trough regular GW and WG if they want to reinforce better or harass more.
If WG are redesigned like outlined above then you can more easily nerf the MsC, which is in need of a lot of nerfs. I'm not sure why you are qqing about this, apart from the HP reduction everything has already been suggested by the community and pros, in fact the values on PO cast range reduction and vision changes are quite conservative.
A combination of MSC vision reduction would lead to the MSC needing to come closer to scout what is on the high ground, making it more vulnerable to being sniped, and the HP change reinforces this. The MSC should also never be a fighting unit, its already extremely strong for what it provides via utility, defensive and offensive spells, this just cuts down some of that power.
Oracle nerf is just reverting the stupid buff that went trough, nothing wrong with that, oracle threats along with blink all-ins are severely restricting the possibility of terran BO's and pidgeon holing them into a set of sub optimal builds that lets protoss be exceedingly greedy in either tech, upgrades economy or any combination of the those, having Oracle nerfed would be perfectly fine.
Notice from the above that, even though a lot of the offensive options of toss where nerfed, their defensive powers are still quite intact, PO still is strong, requires more awareness to cast but is still just as potent, terran needs something extra to do more damage vs protoss.
Stim research reduction is just a revert from the justified nerf that happened back when we where playing on terrible maps like Steppes of War, close spawn Metalopolis and Shattered Temple. Back then the nerf was justified, now though, with maps being so big and with the stale state of the mid game and inability of terran to pressure toss I'd say the nerf is no longer justified. It makes perfect sense to revert this one so that the window of opportunity where terran can do damage is increased slightly. It also has the indirect benefit of forcing protoss to be less greedy and invest more into a earlier army, this will cut into their tech or upgrades or economy and further bring things into parity.
I do agree the storm research time increased might be a tad to much with the stim research time being reduced, but if it turns out its not then the storm nerf is also perfectly justified, it will force toss to be less greedy and actually get some units.
Reaper change is good, the scouting tools of terran are already limited and unreliable, this will make it just slightly better, notice nothing over the top was suggested, like higher speed or damage or HP, just a sight vision increase.
I also don't see what's wrong with the tank and immortal changes that where proposed. Firstly they won't spill into bio and make terran OP or anything because bio still won't get tanks and the immortal shields change won't affect marauders much.
What it will do though is increase the strength of tanks in direct fights, which is sorely needed, and will make them better against massive units, which, quite frankly they are quite pathetic right now.
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote: LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time.
Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes.
We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one.
You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right?
Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright.
Please explain us why a GM player wouldn't be biased. I don't really see the logic behind this. Actually, the more one player is good, the more it's likely that he would be biased, since he probably plays a lot -> he probably cares a lot about winning or losing. There's really nothing to discuss in that post, maybe some single changes would be good, but all together it's just ridiculous.
That's not how it works. He made balance suggestions, so instead of asserting he's biased (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) those suggestions should be addressed. I, too, am wondering how they will wreck PvT; the lack of interaction with what he's said makes me think there really isn't an issue outside of the (so far) knee jerk reactions.
Suggestions deserve to be addressed only if they have some motivations behind them. Saying "please increase colossus damage from 30 to 100" can also be considered as a balance suggestion, except it is dumb so no one would waste his time answering and explaining why it's wrong. Obviously, "protoss won too many games lately, the terran players shall be avenged, must nerf everything so that they won't be able to win a single game from now on" isn't a valid motivation.
Oh, I see. What does this have anything to do with Dwf's suggestions? If you feel they are the equivalent of your colossus damage example then please expand on how they are (it is not at all obvious to me that they are).
The single increase is queen range to 5 ruined all Terran agression, causing the end of WOL to be the era of the patchZerg. But these series of buffs to Terran and nerfs to Protoss are totally acceptable and will not result in any imbalance.
On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote: LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time.
Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes.
We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one.
You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right?
Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright.
All of his proposed protoss nerfs (warpgate and storm research in particular) could possibly screw over PvZ big time.
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote: LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time.
Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes.
We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one.
You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right?
Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright.
All of his proposed protoss nerfs (warpgate and storm research in particular) could possibly screw over PvZ big time.
Also ultras would be much better vs immortals, tanks would be alot better vs ultras, and stim timings. There isn't just protoss and terran to think of when making changes to them for pvt.
David, What are your plans in order to make "forgotten" units such as Battlecruiser, Broodlord, Viper, etc. usable in high level matches?
Who the hell included viper here ? I guess someone who does not plays sc2 often.
Also i do agree with my fellow Terrans, overcharge is just ridiculous back in the day i had an awesome TvP by being aggressive just like the koreans i saw in code S, those guys KNEW you can't let a protoss just unhurt and tech like crazy your aim with all these small aggressions was to delay their tech as long as possible. Today you can't do jack shit and you just derp around with a few marines trying to make him activate the overcharge without any chance of causing real damages.
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change.
Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps. While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops.
Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps.
Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races.
On February 08 2014 03:25 Plansix wrote: The single increase is queen range to 5 ruined all Terran agression, causing the end of WOL to be the era of the patchZerg. But these series of buffs to Terran and nerfs to Protoss are totally acceptable and will not result in any imbalance.
I could post a single nerf to Protoss that would have more effect than the X Terran buffs and Y Protoss nerfs I listed. The amount of buffs/nerfs in a given patch is absolutely irrelevant, all that matters is their impact. Again, I could, say, remove all of that, put "Photon Overcharge cost increased to 150 energy" instead and Protoss would be unplayable despite receiving only one nerf in this imaginary patch.
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
And why do you call this "bias"? In my analysis, Protoss would still have more options, a superior early game and a superior late game with the ability to defend in midgame, so yes odds are that it would still be Protoss-favored.
On February 08 2014 02:14 Whitewing wrote: LMFAO, yes, it's so trivial it simply requires a whole bunch of nerfs to protoss and a whole bunch of buffs to terran, all different!
The impact of all the changes you suggest would result in a massive landslide victory for terrans from now until the end of time.
Not at all; actually I'm fairly sure the match-up would still favor Protoss even after all of this. It's obvious you don't realize how heavily favored PvT currently is for Protoss. I guess you're the kind of person who thinks Ghosts coming with 75 energy fixes the match-up or something, so no wonder you're afraid of real and necessary changes.
We must be careful, the bias is strong in this one.
You realize that you are talking to a GM terran, right?
Discuss about his proposed changes instead of just dismissing them outright.
All of his proposed protoss nerfs (warpgate and storm research in particular) could possibly screw over PvZ big time.
Also ultras would be much better vs immortals, tanks would be alot better vs ultras, and stim timings. There isn't just protoss and terran to think of when making changes to them for pvt.
Ultralisks would indeed be better against Immortals' shields, but if ultras are already hitting Immortals odds are Protoss already lost the fight. Besides, it's not like ultras dominate ZvP; quite on the contrary, from what I watched they only have a window before Protoss' armies get so strong that they effortlessly bash them. I saw way more Swarm hosts in ZvP than 2-bases dual ups lings + infests into 3-bases ultras.
Tanks in Siege Mode would be better vs ultras, yes, but that's not a problem since they considerably underperform against ultras in Siege Mode; right now, most of the time you leave them unsieged and shift focus ultras instead. I'm not even sure it would be better to use Siege against ultras with the +15 damage to Massive. Stim timings don't exist in TvZ.
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change.
Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps. While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops.
Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps.
Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races.
Because people don't believe the match up is as imbalanced as you make it out to be. It's hard and terrans need a buff for sure, but not to the level Dwf suggests. He wants to make stim timings faster while nerfing storm and making warp ins take longer. None of these are minor nerfs or buffs.
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change.
Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps. While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops.
Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps.
Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races.
Again missing the point. People are free to discuss balance suggestions on their own merit. But consider this, blizzard had a patch increasing overlord movement speed and queen range. Following that patch, almost everything about zvt or tvz changed. All the strategies and builds all changed and in ways almost nobody would have predicted. So in that light throwing out a list of 10+ balance changes and then proclaiming that you know the results is somewhat unbelievable. More so when your predicted result is toss will still be ahead.
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change.
Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps. While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops.
Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps.
Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races.
Because people don't believe the match up is as imbalanced as you make it out to be. It's hard and terrans need a buff for sure, but not to the level Dwf suggests. He wants to make stim timings faster while nerfing storm and making warp ins take longer. None of these are minor nerfs or buffs.
I think its you that are under estimating the magnitude of the problem in PvT. Even if you nerf Toss's offensive powers the defensive ones are still intact and the MU isn't that much better because toss can still be very safe and greedy in one way or another. The stim timing is, yes a big change, but I'd say its justified given that the initial nerf was done at a time with a very archaic map pool that, has since improved by leaps and bounds. The storm nerf I'm not sure off though I can see the direction its aiming for and can agree with it if the stim buff and extra freedom to be greedy doesn't open up a timing window for terran to strike. It will definetly also impact TvZ a bit, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing, terran's all-in and pressure options are already quite limited compared to that of protoss and zerg, this would make them just slightly more unpredictable and make the MUs a bit more interesting.
The WG change should be done as a total rework and a change that big should only be attempted during LoTV, I agree with that.
On February 08 2014 03:25 Plansix wrote: The single increase is queen range to 5 ruined all Terran agression, causing the end of WOL to be the era of the patchZerg. But these series of buffs to Terran and nerfs to Protoss are totally acceptable and will not result in any imbalance.
I am sure that is exactly how it would work out.
Plenty of pros even while that was in the testing phase WARNED of the consequences of that patch, some very constructively. I and the rest of the cabal of whiners made so many prescient predictions from the HoTS beta that Blizzard's dev team appear to have not been able to figure out.
I'm a bit above scrub tier as a player, with no background in game design, but yet I was 100% correct on what the Oracle change was going to do. HOW IN THE NAME OF GOD did Blizzard not figure this? Unless they intended proxy oracle builds to be a semi-stable opener in Pvt, which maybe they did.
That's a strict balance issue as well, not the kind of redesigned fundamentals that people have advocated for. Incidentally, most of us aren't like, demanding the game be dismantled and rebuilt, just TRY some radical stuff. If they can't do it due to the attached E-sports scene, negotiate a proper off-season for competition, let people recharge their batteries, let transfers between teams occur and in that gap experiment!
Anybody remember WC3? Compare The Frozen Throne with Reign of Chaos, that's the sort of radical overhaul Blizzard used to have the inclination to do. Where the fuck has that been?
Also Blizzard shouldn't have to do these kind of Q+As as a bone to the community. They should have long ago hired a guy to actually scour here, Bnet forums and a few other locations, and bring back good critiques, ideas etc. Considering how much they spend on the likes of WCS, you'd think they might stretch to actually addressing the grass roots players and their concerns.
Notes: 1. I say Blizzard, not David Kim. Guy doesn't do absolutely everything, he's just a lightning rod for attacks, especially with Browder out of the picture. 2. I don't wish to appear a braggart. I actually mention my 'startling accurate' prediction rates, solely because I find it ridiculous that someone as patently unqualified as me appears to notice things that the dev team don't.
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change.
Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps. While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops.
Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps.
Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races.
Again missing the point. People are free to discuss balance suggestions on their own merit. But consider this, blizzard had a patch increasing overlord movement speed and queen range. Following that patch, almost everything about zvt or tvz changed. All the strategies and builds all changed and in ways almost nobody would have predicted. So in that light throwing out a list of 10+ balance changes and then proclaiming that you know the results is somewhat unbelievable. More so when your predicted result is toss will still be ahead.
Half the proposed changes have very limited impact. Reapers having +1 sight range, for instance, cannot break the game. Nukes dealing 750 damage to buildings instead of 500 cannot either; they're never used now, and would still be marginal even with this change. Reintroducing Moebius Reactor or partially reverting the Oracle buff [and I still left the acceleration change intact + slighly faster than the original Oracle, so you see, I am not petty at all in my changes] cannot break the game since we've already been there. Decreasing the ridiculous damage Tempests deal to Massive air targets cannot break the game since like 98+% of the TvP are decided before the Tempest stage anyway; and I don't think the new value would prevent them from slaughtering broods in PvZ. Ghosts costing 25 less minerals cannot break the game for obvious reasons.
The huge difference is also that the Queen/Overlord patch was made when TvZ was apparently balanced, while my changes would occur when TvP is as bad if not worse than end of WoL TvZ.
I am going to detail a bit what I intend to do with the more major changes (stim, warp-ins, Storm).
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change.
Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps. While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops.
Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps.
Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races.
Again missing the point. People are free to discuss balance suggestions on their own merit. But consider this, blizzard had a patch increasing overlord movement speed and queen range. Following that patch, almost everything about zvt or tvz changed. All the strategies and builds all changed and in ways almost nobody would have predicted. So in that light throwing out a list of 10+ balance changes and then proclaiming that you know the results is somewhat unbelievable. More so when your predicted result is toss will still be ahead.
Well at least for me it was totally clear to what the queen range increase would lead in TvZ and I was very vocal about it. But I only got the answer that it won´t be a big deal etc. Well I also predicted that the Hellbat nerf would ruin TvP.... It took surprisingly a bit longer than expected, but the result is clear now. I don´t think any balance change in HotS so far had this much of an impact on the matchup. Back then Protoss were just still struggling to get turbo medivac harassment under control, so we saw no immediate impact - something very natural, since this required a major change in playstyle for protoss. While the oracle change was dumb and effected the matchup also a bit, I think a revert of the hellbat nerf would even out TvP by a lot! For TvT I think terrans were very close to figuring out smooth counter builds versus fast hellbat drops right when the patch hit. So I don´t even believe there would be longterm damage to that matchup.
You know what was balanced? Late WoL PvZ toilet lotteries. 50/50 chance of landing the toilet bowl after dancing around the map with 200/200 deathballs for 15 minutes. All this balance talk amounts to asking for a bunch of unit compositions that end up with this 50/50 chance, like you EMP templars b4 he gets his storms off type of situations. So we end up once again with 200/200 deathballs dancing for 15 minutes trying to get the better engagement, templars vs ghosts, vikings vs collossi, ball vs ball etc.
This is just bad design. I feel the only reason DK did this AMA in the first place is that finally there's indisputable and farcical proof of how bad the design is. Just look at the Ghost buff, if that isn't an endorsement of the SCV pull then I don't know what is. He just wants to go back to the good old days when he can shove the stats in our faces and shower himself with self-praise in front of his bosses. Anything to get the stats back in balance is all that matters.
The biggest problem with this game is that guys like David Kim refuse to take on design changes. He only does bandaid fixes and doesn't touch fundamental flaws. All that'll achieve is another incarnation of the bad old boring WoL PvZ type gameplay. Yea yea I know LotV... whenever that is...
On February 08 2014 04:20 nojem wrote: The biggest problem with this game is that guys like David Kim refuse to take on design changes. He only does bandaid fixes and doesn't touch fundamental flaws. All that'll achieve is another incarnation of the bad old boring WoL PvZ type gameplay. Yea yea I know LotV... whenever that is...
they already stated design changes rarely occur in a balance patch. the games fundamental design is as you see it now.
if you're this distraught keep in mind... there are 463978798 other RTS games. like Red Alert 2 for example, its a cult classic and still has an active competitive community.
Well it's a very bad fallacy used way too often I feel needs correcting. "If you don't like it just leave" truely is the argument that enables atrocities around the world past and present.
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change.
Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps. While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops.
Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps.
Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races.
Again missing the point. People are free to discuss balance suggestions on their own merit. But consider this, blizzard had a patch increasing overlord movement speed and queen range. Following that patch, almost everything about zvt or tvz changed. All the strategies and builds all changed and in ways almost nobody would have predicted. So in that light throwing out a list of 10+ balance changes and then proclaiming that you know the results is somewhat unbelievable. More so when your predicted result is toss will still be ahead.
Half the proposed changes have very limited impact. Reapers having +1 sight range, for instance, cannot break the game. Nukes dealing 750 damage to buildings instead of 500 cannot either; they're never used now, and would still be marginal even with this change. Reintroducing Moebius Reactor or partially reverting the Oracle buff [and I still left the acceleration change intact + slighly faster than the original Oracle, so you see, I am not petty at all in my changes] cannot break the game since we've already been there. Decreasing the ridiculous damage Tempests deal to Massive air targets cannot break the game since like 98+% of the TvP are decided before the Tempest stage anyway; and I don't think the new value would prevent them from slaughtering broods in PvZ. Ghosts costing 25 less minerals cannot break the game for obvious reasons.
The huge difference is also that the Queen/Overlord patch was made when TvZ was apparently balanced, while my changes would occur when TvP is as bad if not worse than end of WoL TvZ.
I am going to detail a bit what I intend to do with the more major changes (stim, warp-ins, Storm).
Look: here's the deal. Winrates are currently slightly in protoss's favor. In a game of seconds like SC2, even a slight change can have a big impact. Ghost timings just got way stronger in the game, already templar openings have gotten weaker, and we haven't seen how that will impact the matchup yet. Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, we don't know.
Reapers getting a +1 sight range is a big buff to terran scouting. Nukes dealing 750 damage to buildings can be a big buff, I don't believe nukes are weak: the reason they aren't used is that terrans generally play a hyper aggressive style and don't generally stalemate. Nukes are great for breaking stalemates. The only reason to buff their damage to buildings is to make them more useful at base harass, which they are already great at. Nukes already clear out spines/spores and cannons.
Tempest damage vs. air is entirely for PvP and PvZ, if we don't see BC's there's no point to nerfing it, I don't even know why this is on the table. Tempests need to be able to annihilate colossi.
Ghosts just got a buff, they don't need another one.
The oracle has basically disappeared from pro PvTs, why does it need a nerf? Attacks of any kind always seem overpowered when the trend of using it first appears: then people figure out how to deal with it correctly and it dies away. If we were still seeing oracle every game I would completely agree with you, but we don't. Is the oracle supposed to be useless against terran? At what point in the game is it supposed to be a worthy investment to make it?
Stop and think for a moment: if one small change can have a huge impact (queens getting a range buff, for example), think about what kind of impact other changes can get. Has it occurred to you that if you can EMP the MSC with a ghost timing, there won't be a photon overcharge, for example, or no time warp?
Delaying storm research will make templar openings non viable, especially with the buffed ghost timings. We'll be stuck going colossus openings every game where we don't all-in, which basically means we'll be dead to scv pulls again every game.
Stim research was nerfed for a reason, there's no reason to un-nerf it. It's probably the single best upgrade in the game.
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change.
Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps. While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops.
Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps.
Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races.
Again missing the point. People are free to discuss balance suggestions on their own merit. But consider this, blizzard had a patch increasing overlord movement speed and queen range. Following that patch, almost everything about zvt or tvz changed. All the strategies and builds all changed and in ways almost nobody would have predicted. So in that light throwing out a list of 10+ balance changes and then proclaiming that you know the results is somewhat unbelievable. More so when your predicted result is toss will still be ahead.
Half the proposed changes have very limited impact. Reapers having +1 sight range, for instance, cannot break the game. Nukes dealing 750 damage to buildings instead of 500 cannot either; they're never used now, and would still be marginal even with this change. Reintroducing Moebius Reactor or partially reverting the Oracle buff [and I still left the acceleration change intact + slighly faster than the original Oracle, so you see, I am not petty at all in my changes] cannot break the game since we've already been there. Decreasing the ridiculous damage Tempests deal to Massive air targets cannot break the game since like 98+% of the TvP are decided before the Tempest stage anyway; and I don't think the new value would prevent them from slaughtering broods in PvZ. Ghosts costing 25 less minerals cannot break the game for obvious reasons.
The huge difference is also that the Queen/Overlord patch was made when TvZ was apparently balanced, while my changes would occur when TvP is as bad if not worse than end of WoL TvZ.
I am going to detail a bit what I intend to do with the more major changes (stim, warp-ins, Storm).
For the record I think most of your suggestions are completely reasonable. I definitely a fan of buffing stim. I think it can only be good for all matchups. Prior to the queen patch you couldn't convince any Zerg player that +2 range to queens was a major buff. It was a"a buff", but they would rather have "x". A couple months later you have scarlett spreading creep into bombers third base in an mlg match on ohana. People in general are not good at evaluating the impact charges have for their own race.
Please can we avoid compairing sadness and loss of life of thousands to millions of people through out history to not getting what you want in a video game. It devalues any argument and just makes all of us look out of touch with reality.
Oh it appears that problem was solved with a mighty hammer.
Whitewing, do you really want to utter such nonsense:
The oracle has basically disappeared from pro PvTs, why does it need a nerf?
It was used in Trap v Supernova this morning... And it has been probably the macro opening for P since the buff. Sure, blink stalker is incredibly popular at the moment, but oracle still features in the majority of non-blink games.
The oracle has basically disappeared from pro PvTs, why does it need a nerf?
It was used in Trap v Supernova this morning... And it has been probably the macro opening for P since the buff. Sure, blink stalker is incredibly popular at the moment, but oracle still features in the majority of non-blink games.
It is not in the majority of pro games, and it only used in games like Trap vs. Supernova because it DOESN'T show up in every game. When it was popular there were games all the time where the oracle was defended and the protoss wound up behind. SoS was basically the only player on the planet who could make oracle openers work into a normal macro game without doing crippling levels of damage, and he was just plain playing better than his opponents.
I should point out that was someone says "it has basically disappeared" which means it is rare, rather than 100% non-existent, saying that "it happened once this morning!" is not evidence that they are wrong.
Blink stalker all-ins also just got a nerf, and I'm absolutely on board for a mothership core vision range nerf to nerf the blink stalker all-in more.
The goal when balancing a game is to make the smallest, most incremental changes possible to see if you hit your target.
The goal when designing a game is to make big changes and see what happens: they aren't currently designing though, they are balancing.
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change.
Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps. While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops.
Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps.
Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races.
Because people don't believe the match up is as imbalanced as you make it out to be. It's hard and terrans need a buff for sure, but not to the level Dwf suggests. He wants to make stim timings faster while nerfing storm and making warp ins take longer. None of these are minor nerfs or buffs.
The TvP imbalance is not minor either. One does not stop a massive haemorrhage with a tiny band-aid. Not even at the end of WoL was Terran slaughtered that hard by the dominant race. All the indicators are red. Protoss are dominating everywhere; ladder, WCS, other tournaments. Half the Terrans I know have pretty much stop laddering because of how obnoxious TvP is. Even in Korea, Terran has abysmal results. Code A was a massacre. Online qualifiers are no better. Just like there was a "patchzerg" phenomenon, mid-GM EU/NA Protoss players are starting to be a major threat even for Code S Terrans.
As for my changes: stim coming faster means Terran will finally be able to have stim in time for various 1- or 2-base all-ins. Offensively, stim coming 30 sec earlier carries no game-ending threat since the MSC is still there. Notice I did not touch at all the strength of the 2000 hps Cannon. Stim coming 30 sec earlier means Protoss will have to play a bit more cautiously since bio pokes may have stim earlier, and that's exactly what is needed: a more balanced risk/reward ratio for various ambitious Protoss builds. Reintroducing the notion of risk in PvT early game is the top priority.
The Storm change is not as huge as you think. Storm timings already vary a lot as of now; for instance, yesterday I played Harstem and he finished Storm at 13'20, while defending my Medivac pressure with mass Zealots, his few Sentries, 1-2 Archon(s) and PO. Today, I played another GM Protoss who finished Storm by 10'30; so as you can see, Storm isn't strictly needed to hold Medivac pushes, Zealots + Archon defence into Storm are common and 20-30 extra seconds (you have to factor a potential extra chrono) will not mean at all the death of Protoss as soon as Terran has 4 Medivacs or something. I propose this change to increase the window of vulnerability, because some pressure openings such as Blink transition too easily into Storm when they fail, shutting down any counter-pressure with ease.
Warp-ins taking longer is done so defending drops becomes more difficult. Right now, it's too easy for Protoss at high level to be impervious to drops; even with poor pre-positioning, Zealots are produced so fast that they start attacking the drop before it's done landing, and/or can soak so much damage (because you have no time to kill them as they're being warped) that the main army is here before you have time to do damage—all of this while the Nexus is shooting at you. With a longer warp-in time, Protoss will have to be more careful with their positioning, concede a bit more defence, or warp a little further away from the drop, thus leaving a bit more time for Terran to attack. Remember it's critical for Terran to be able to do their job in midgame.
On February 08 2014 04:39 nojem wrote: RA2 was fail compared to Blizzard's games. Now the designer of RA2 is making Blizzard's game fail.
have you played RA2? considering when it was made and the resources EA put towards it.. its great. and there exists and active vibrant competitive community around the game 14 years after its release.
RA2 is now 14 years old. the fact that a community still exists around the game is a testament to its quality. its final patch was made while Dustin Browder was the game designer.
from a commercial perspective... RA2 is the highest selling, highest revenue NON-Blizzard RTS.
i know a few guys who've been playing it for 10+ years.
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change.
Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps. While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops.
Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps.
Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races.
Because people don't believe the match up is as imbalanced as you make it out to be. It's hard and terrans need a buff for sure, but not to the level Dwf suggests. He wants to make stim timings faster while nerfing storm and making warp ins take longer. None of these are minor nerfs or buffs.
The TvP imbalance is not minor either. One does not stop a massive haemorrhage with a tiny band-aid. Not even at the end of WoL was Terran slaughtered that hard by the dominant race. All the indicators are red. Protoss are dominating everywhere; ladder, WCS, other tournaments. Half the Terrans I know have pretty much stop laddering because of how obnoxious TvP is. Even in Korea, Terran has abysmal results. Code A was a massacre. Online qualifiers are no better. Just like there was a "patchzerg" phenomenon, mid-GM EU/NA Protoss players are starting to be a major threat even for Code S Terrans.
As for my changes: stim coming faster means Terran will finally be able to have stim in time for various 1- or 2-base all-ins. Offensively, stim coming 30 sec earlier carries no game-ending threat since the MSC is still there. Notice I did not touch at all the strength of the 2000 hps Cannon. Stim coming 30 sec earlier means Protoss will have to play a bit more cautiously since bio pokes may have stim earlier, and that's exactly what is needed: a more balanced risk/reward ratio for various ambitious Protoss builds. Reintroducing the notion of risk in PvT early game is the top priority.
The Storm change is not as huge as you think. Storm timings already vary a lot as of now; for instance, yesterday I played Harstem and he finished Storm at 13'20, while defending my Medivac pressure with mass Zealots, his few Sentries, 1-2 Archon(s) and PO. Today, I played another GM Protoss who finished Storm by 10'30; so as you can see, Storm isn't strictly needed to hold Medivac pushes, Zealots + Archon defence into Storm are common and 20-30 extra seconds (you have to factor a potential extra chrono) will not mean at all the death of Protoss as soon as Terran has 4 Medivacs or something. I propose this change to increase the window of vulnerability, because some pressure openings such as Blink transition too easily into Storm when they fail, shutting down any counter-pressure with ease.
Warp-ins taking longer is done so defending drops becomes more difficult. Right now, it's too easy for Protoss at high level to be impervious to drops; even with poor pre-positioning, Zealots are produced so fast that they start attacking the drop before it's done landing, and/or can soak so much damage (because you have no time to kill them as they're being warped) that the main army is here before you have time to do damage—all of this while the Nexus is shooting at you. With a longer warp-in time, Protoss will have to be more careful with their positioning, concede a bit more defence, or warp a little further away from the drop, thus leaving a bit more time for Terran to attack. Remember it's critical for Terran to be able to do their job in midgame.
Although your points are well argued, I'm for a more cautious approach. 10 different changes are to much for the game and even minor things like + range on queens or quicker overlords can have a huge effect on very match up. There is no reason to risk ruining the game for both Zerg and Protoss just to pull Terran up with a large number of buffs.
A lot of us agree that Terran needs love, but the amount of love appear to be up for debate.
On February 08 2014 04:55 Ghanburighan wrote: Whitewing, do you really want to utter such nonsense:
The oracle has basically disappeared from pro PvTs, why does it need a nerf?
It was used in Trap v Supernova this morning... And it has been probably the macro opening for P since the buff. Sure, blink stalker is incredibly popular at the moment, but oracle still features in the majority of non-blink games.
It is not in the majority of pro games, and it only used in games like Trap vs. Supernova because it DOESN'T show up in every game. When it was popular there were games all the time where the oracle was defended and the protoss wound up behind. SoS was basically the only player on the planet who could make oracle openers work into a normal macro game without doing crippling levels of damage, and he was just plain playing better than his opponents.
I should point out that was someone says "it has basically disappeared" which means it is rare, rather than 100% non-existent, saying that "it happened once this morning!" is not evidence that they are wrong.
Blink stalker all-ins also just got a nerf, and I'm absolutely on board for a mothership core vision range nerf to nerf the blink stalker all-in more.
The goal when balancing a game is to make the smallest, most incremental changes possible to see if you hit your target.
The goal when designing a game is to make big changes and see what happens: they aren't currently designing though, they are balancing.
Fine, let's look at the previous big korean PvT match, Parting v TY. Did we have an oracle opening there? Yes we did... I could keep this going for a while, but, honestly, you live in your own world where facts don't seem to apply and the onus to prove things is on everyone but you.
On February 08 2014 04:55 Ghanburighan wrote: Whitewing, do you really want to utter such nonsense:
The oracle has basically disappeared from pro PvTs, why does it need a nerf?
It was used in Trap v Supernova this morning... And it has been probably the macro opening for P since the buff. Sure, blink stalker is incredibly popular at the moment, but oracle still features in the majority of non-blink games.
It is not in the majority of pro games, and it only used in games like Trap vs. Supernova because it DOESN'T show up in every game. When it was popular there were games all the time where the oracle was defended and the protoss wound up behind. SoS was basically the only player on the planet who could make oracle openers work into a normal macro game without doing crippling levels of damage, and he was just plain playing better than his opponents.
I should point out that was someone says "it has basically disappeared" which means it is rare, rather than 100% non-existent, saying that "it happened once this morning!" is not evidence that they are wrong.
Blink stalker all-ins also just got a nerf, and I'm absolutely on board for a mothership core vision range nerf to nerf the blink stalker all-in more.
The goal when balancing a game is to make the smallest, most incremental changes possible to see if you hit your target.
The goal when designing a game is to make big changes and see what happens: they aren't currently designing though, they are balancing.
Fine, let's look at the previous big korean PvT match, Parting v TY. Did we have an oracle opening there? Yes we did... I could keep this going for a while, but, honestly, you live in your own world where facts don't seem to apply and the onus to prove things is on everyone but you.
No, you're just under the impression that PvT is horrifically imbalanced and that everything protoss does needs a nerf, wheras I think it's only slightly imbalanced and only a few minor changes are needed to even things out.
I also will admit to not watching GSL this season, I don't have a subscription and the times are bad for me, but I have seen proleague. Are you suggesting that oracle openers should not be viable?
Answer this then: How much damage does a 1 base oracle opener have to do to break even, given the investment into stargate, the unit, and where the toss would be without (faster nexus, faster robo, faster forges, etc.).
The storm change is huge. You are right about the variance of timing, but you have to understand that right now, later storm means you have more units/upgrades/whatever you delayed storm to get. Increasing its time will still require the same resources as early storm, but now you won't have it early. It's not as simple as you make it. Also you're wrong about the blink transition, the transition isn't "easy" because of storm timing, it's because of the defensive power of photon overcharge and the raw strength of the blink push in the first place, allowing it to be extremely powerful without being "all-in" aka toss can put resources into other things as he's pushing.
Stim coming faster, I don't like it, but I wouldn't mind seeing it in a test map, it's certainly not as ludicrous as hydra change lol Lastly, for the warp-in timing, I'm going to say not to that change. Speedvacs are good enough to make drops threatening, warp-in isn't a problem. I'm not sure what pro games you're watching where toss has nothing in place for a double (or more) medivac drop and comes off totally unscathed because of zealot warp-ins lol
Edit: Also to the guy that says oracle is the "go-to macro opening for PvT", please,let's not exagerate lol It's viable, but it's not the go-to build. Imo I hate the oracle just as much as the next guy in lower levels of play (I'm not GM, obv) since they can be so damaging, but pros have learned to deal with them pretty well.
On February 08 2014 04:55 Ghanburighan wrote: Whitewing, do you really want to utter such nonsense:
The oracle has basically disappeared from pro PvTs, why does it need a nerf?
It was used in Trap v Supernova this morning... And it has been probably the macro opening for P since the buff. Sure, blink stalker is incredibly popular at the moment, but oracle still features in the majority of non-blink games.
It is not in the majority of pro games, and it only used in games like Trap vs. Supernova because it DOESN'T show up in every game. When it was popular there were games all the time where the oracle was defended and the protoss wound up behind. SoS was basically the only player on the planet who could make oracle openers work into a normal macro game without doing crippling levels of damage, and he was just plain playing better than his opponents.
I should point out that was someone says "it has basically disappeared" which means it is rare, rather than 100% non-existent, saying that "it happened once this morning!" is not evidence that they are wrong.
Blink stalker all-ins also just got a nerf, and I'm absolutely on board for a mothership core vision range nerf to nerf the blink stalker all-in more.
The goal when balancing a game is to make the smallest, most incremental changes possible to see if you hit your target.
The goal when designing a game is to make big changes and see what happens: they aren't currently designing though, they are balancing.
Fine, let's look at the previous big korean PvT match, Parting v TY. Did we have an oracle opening there? Yes we did... I could keep this going for a while, but, honestly, you live in your own world where facts don't seem to apply and the onus to prove things is on everyone but you.
No, you're just under the impression that PvT is horrifically imbalanced and that everything protoss does needs a nerf, wheras I think it's only slightly imbalanced and only a few minor changes are needed to even things out.
I also will admit to not watching GSL this season, I don't have a subscription and the times are bad for me, but I have seen proleague.
We were not even discussing balance -_- What would my biases have to do with whether oracles are a common opening or not. It's your incredibly arrogance at asserting claims which you have no idea about that I took offense with.
On February 08 2014 04:55 Ghanburighan wrote: Whitewing, do you really want to utter such nonsense:
The oracle has basically disappeared from pro PvTs, why does it need a nerf?
It was used in Trap v Supernova this morning... And it has been probably the macro opening for P since the buff. Sure, blink stalker is incredibly popular at the moment, but oracle still features in the majority of non-blink games.
It is not in the majority of pro games, and it only used in games like Trap vs. Supernova because it DOESN'T show up in every game. When it was popular there were games all the time where the oracle was defended and the protoss wound up behind. SoS was basically the only player on the planet who could make oracle openers work into a normal macro game without doing crippling levels of damage, and he was just plain playing better than his opponents.
I should point out that was someone says "it has basically disappeared" which means it is rare, rather than 100% non-existent, saying that "it happened once this morning!" is not evidence that they are wrong.
Blink stalker all-ins also just got a nerf, and I'm absolutely on board for a mothership core vision range nerf to nerf the blink stalker all-in more.
The goal when balancing a game is to make the smallest, most incremental changes possible to see if you hit your target.
The goal when designing a game is to make big changes and see what happens: they aren't currently designing though, they are balancing.
Fine, let's look at the previous big korean PvT match, Parting v TY. Did we have an oracle opening there? Yes we did... I could keep this going for a while, but, honestly, you live in your own world where facts don't seem to apply and the onus to prove things is on everyone but you.
No, you're just under the impression that PvT is horrifically imbalanced and that everything protoss does needs a nerf, wheras I think it's only slightly imbalanced and only a few minor changes are needed to even things out.
I also will admit to not watching GSL this season, I don't have a subscription and the times are bad for me, but I have seen proleague.
We were not even discussing balance -_- What would my biases have to do with whether oracles are a common opening or not. It's your incredibly arrogance at asserting claims which you have no idea about that I took offense with.
I've read enough of your posts in this thread to know where you stand. Look: oracle openings do not show up every game like you seem to insinuate. David Kim noticed it too, are you accusing him of being a liar? Not every PvT is blink attack or oracle opener.
You also don't seem to know what arrogance is. Arrogance is not making a statement of fact and then being wrong about it.
If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
On February 08 2014 03:07 Ghanburighan wrote: Whitewing and Plansix, the two people I'd like to have balancing the game... I would love getting every fact and complaint responded to with patronising and trolling.
Edit: And IdrA, when still a top foreigner, predicted a number of imbalances, including ghosts getting nerfed almost a year before they were, alongside obvious ones like infestors getting nerfed. So, yes, being good at the game does give you good knowledge of the game. Actually arguing his point with facts and examples makes it much better, of course.
In early WOL while zergs were hugely underpresented and Dustin Browder stated that TvZ win/rates were close to 50-50, it was clear for everyone who ignored the useless win/rate statistics (that always goes towards 50/50 regardless of balance) and either looked at more relevant numbers or simply analyzed games, that it was heavily T favored. Blizzad, however, back then acted a bit quicker than they do today and nerfed Reapers and Siege tanks shortly after the patch. Idra, however, kept saying that it still was T favored and argued that it was more imbalanced (prepatch) than most people realized.
He was !@#$%^&* right, According to statistics by Aliguac, there was a terran invovled in all non-mirror matchups 70-77% of all games in early WOL compared to 50-55% for zerg --> That indicates that the matchup was heavily T favored.
How does that look today? Protoss = 72% and terran = 56% --> T very underpowered.
While some of the suggestions Dwf presents might not be neccasary (tactical Nuke), I really think its extremely unlikely that the combo of these suggestions will make the game T favored. I would even argue that the combo of these suggestions are much less drastic than the fungal growth buff that Blizzards gave Zerg in spring 2011. And back then FYI terran representation was around 68%, zerg representation around 65%. Aliguac W/R were slightly T favored (similar to how PvT w/r today are slightly toss favored).
So overall, Z wasn't underperforming as badly as T is today, and even later on (after Z representation equalized T representation), Zerg got another buff --> Queen range increased from 3 to 5, which arguably also was a more significant than the combo of Dwf's suggestions.
So IMO, either a big change is needed (like a big Hellion buff to buff mech) or it could be a combo of small suggestions, such as what Dwf presents.
Proxy oracle builds that transition into a standard macro game without significantly putting the Protoss behind should not be viable, in this Wombat's opinion.
The Oracle buff was also silly, DK is right when he says pros are dealing with it better, but they are oft doing so by playing to near blind-counter it in some games. The early engi and slightly delayed tech makes dealing with blink allins even harder. If Protoss intended to play a macro-oriented game and not to pursue these kind of aggressive options a Terran playing defensively and not cutting corners can fall behind.
I'm in favour of many of the Dwf's changes, especially certain reversions of Terran nerfs that are now anachronistic. Stim research time was dropped way way back in WoL in an era of smaller maps and Protoss requiring sentries to hold ramps, not quite as true now
I also feel Protoss upgrades need cost increase again. Protoss need fewer sentries, so they have more gas in PvT than they would in WoL by virtue of that cut. They get the fastest ups and they're shared by all ground units, it also might lead to some more stylistic divergence
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
And if terrans have better scouting options, they can see it comming, which will help them deal with it. You don't need to nerf something directly to reduce how powerful it is in the game.
On February 08 2014 04:55 Ghanburighan wrote: Whitewing, do you really want to utter such nonsense:
The oracle has basically disappeared from pro PvTs, why does it need a nerf?
It was used in Trap v Supernova this morning... And it has been probably the macro opening for P since the buff. Sure, blink stalker is incredibly popular at the moment, but oracle still features in the majority of non-blink games.
It is not in the majority of pro games, and it only used in games like Trap vs. Supernova because it DOESN'T show up in every game. When it was popular there were games all the time where the oracle was defended and the protoss wound up behind. SoS was basically the only player on the planet who could make oracle openers work into a normal macro game without doing crippling levels of damage, and he was just plain playing better than his opponents.
I should point out that was someone says "it has basically disappeared" which means it is rare, rather than 100% non-existent, saying that "it happened once this morning!" is not evidence that they are wrong.
Blink stalker all-ins also just got a nerf, and I'm absolutely on board for a mothership core vision range nerf to nerf the blink stalker all-in more.
The goal when balancing a game is to make the smallest, most incremental changes possible to see if you hit your target.
The goal when designing a game is to make big changes and see what happens: they aren't currently designing though, they are balancing.
Fine, let's look at the previous big korean PvT match, Parting v TY. Did we have an oracle opening there? Yes we did... I could keep this going for a while, but, honestly, you live in your own world where facts don't seem to apply and the onus to prove things is on everyone but you.
No, you're just under the impression that PvT is horrifically imbalanced and that everything protoss does needs a nerf, wheras I think it's only slightly imbalanced and only a few minor changes are needed to even things out.
I also will admit to not watching GSL this season, I don't have a subscription and the times are bad for me, but I have seen proleague. Are you suggesting that oracle openers should not be viable?
Answer this then: How much damage does a 1 base oracle opener have to do to break even, given the investment into stargate, the unit, and where the toss would be without (faster nexus, faster robo, faster forges, etc.).
Well if you had looked at Code A you would had noticed that not a single Terran who played vs a Protoss made it into Code S. That Protoss went like 17/1 or something ridicoulous like that in maps and had 94% win ratio in maps and like 76% in series.
If you had looked at the last three major tournaments, we have seen 3 PvP finals. If you had payed attention to Code S you would had noticed there are 3 Terrans in round 32, and one of them got massacred today (so be it he played quite bad). Also you had noticed 4/4 players making it into round of 16 is Protoss.
If you also had payed attention to the IEM qualifier in Korea last night you might had noticed that a single Terran took a map vs a Protoss from round 16 and that was TY going for a inbase proxy baracks bunker rush that went unscouted vs Parting.
I can go on for ages - but if this is just a "small imbalance" - can you please explain to me what makes a.. Lets say standard sized imbalance?
Terran clearly now needs more than a Ghost buff.
At the moment Protoss has so many viable options that it does not matter if you nerf one of them slightly since there will be so many options left that still is superior to any Terran build.
Meanwhile Terran needs to go for the same boring build over and over again. Its not just about balance, its about actually being able to enjoy the game.
And that last part is what I really hope for Blizzard to change since I am so tired of playing TvP that I probably made my last ladder game yesterday until something changes. And I have made around 8K matches in Master League so it's probably only good for me to have some time off this game.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
Blink stalker and oracle are the reason why terran has so few options. All openings terran does have to take into account blink and oracle. You simply can not come up with opening that doesn´t consider blink or oracle since they are so standard play nowadays.
WoL was pretty much turtle toss every game, yet we saw some of the most amazing games. For example Mvp vs. Squirtle finals and MKP vs. Parting games. TvP is real lackluster since it is no longer the back and forth game it used to be. A lot of aggression is shut down by MSC and a lot of games are decided by very few things. For example Trap vs. Maru ended was decided by 1-base DTs.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
On February 08 2014 03:07 Ghanburighan wrote: Whitewing and Plansix, the two people I'd like to have balancing the game... I would love getting every fact and complaint responded to with patronising and trolling.
Edit: And IdrA, when still a top foreigner, predicted a number of imbalances, including ghosts getting nerfed almost a year before they were, alongside obvious ones like infestors getting nerfed. So, yes, being good at the game does give you good knowledge of the game. Actually arguing his point with facts and examples makes it much better, of course.
In early WOL while zergs were hugely underpresented and Dustin Browder stated that TvZ win/rates were close to 50-50, it was clear for everyone who ignored the useless win/rate statistics (that always goes towards 50/50 regardless of balance) and either looked at more relevant numbers or simply analyzed games, that it was heavily T favored. Blizzad, however, back then acted a bit quicker than they do today and nerfed Reapers and Siege tanks shortly after the patch. Idra, however, kept saying that it still was T favored and argued that it was more imbalanced (prepatch) than most people realized.
He was !@#$%^&* right, According to statistics by Aliguac, there was a terran invovled in all non-mirror matchups 70-77% of all games in early WOL compared to 50-55% for zerg --> That indicates that the matchup was heavily T favored.
How does that look today? Protoss = 72% and terran = 56% --> T very underpowered.
While some of the suggestions Dwf presents might not be neccasary (tactical Nuke), I really think its extremely unlikely that the combo of these suggestions will make the game T favored. I would even argue that the combo of these suggestions are much less drastic than the fungal growth buff that Blizzards gave Zerg in spring 2011. And back then FYI terran representation was around 68%, zerg representation around 65%. Aliguac W/R were slightly T favored (similar to how PvT w/r today are slightly toss favored).
So overall, Z wasn't underperforming as badly as T is today, and even later on (after Z representation equalized T representation), Zerg got another buff --> Queen range increased from 3 to 5, which arguably also was a more significant than the combo of Dwf's suggestions.
So IMO, either a big change is needed (like a big Hellion buff to buff mech) or it could be a combo of small suggestions, such as what Dwf presents.
I think the change that I would like to see the most is a different way to access balance. With WR we either have a sample size problem or when we don't then it is too insensitive to balance change (better players of the worse race play worse players of the better race)
I think using mirror MU statistics would be a good approach.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Exactly. Nerfing builds like blink/oracle only makes the game more dull and bland. Give Terran the tools to respond and not be to far behind and we get a better game as a whole.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Exactly. Nerfing builds like blink/oracle only makes the game more dull and bland. Give Terran the tools to respond and not be to far behind and we get a better game as a whole.
What would an example of such a "tool" be? Also fun how Terran should not be "to far behind" Just... Behind
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Exactly. Nerfing builds like blink/oracle only makes the game more dull and bland. Give Terran the tools to respond and not be to far behind and we get a better game as a whole.
What would an example of such a "tool" be? Also fun how Terran should not be "to far behind" Just... Behind
It's an all in, if the Terran comes out ahead every time, it's a crappy all in.
And scouting solves a lot of problems. Most if the races can stop anything if they can see it comming. The problem is Protoss gets map control up until the all in hits.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Exactly. Nerfing builds like blink/oracle only makes the game more dull and bland. Give Terran the tools to respond and not be to far behind and we get a better game as a whole.
What would an example of such a "tool" be? Also fun how Terran should not be "to far behind" Just... Behind
It's an all in, if the Terran comes out ahead every time, it's a crappy all in.
And scouting solves a lot of problems. Most if the races can stop anything if they can see it comming. The problem is Protoss gets map control up until the all in hits.
That's not very accurate analysis of the situation. The problem is that it's not all-in at the moment, it's just a harass option because a) you can easily transition out of it into storm, and b) even if scouted, it's very difficult to stop - it probably won't kill a terran with 3-4 bunkers, who did a build that's safe against blink (unless the TW are very good), but it can still do damage and contain the terran. So in that sense, there's no real counter to it.
2 Base BLink Pressure is EXTREMELY hard to hold even for Pros so what woudl be the Tool? Does Terran Get their Own MSC that can PO their CC? Or have a CC that can seemingly switch between ORb and PF ? LOL
Blizzard always seems so passive and distant whenever they do these Q&A sessions. They are posed with questions with ideas that have been thrown around the community for ongoing months, and yet they hardly nudge on balance changes over and over.
I really wish they would allow the community to balance their game but then I also fear for what kind of unwelcomed changes it might bring. *shudder*
In conclusion, all the changes are actually not only fair, they are well thought out and complement each other nicely. Instead of bashing on the poster you should at least take the time to refute all his changes point per point, or analyze the synergies and implications of all the changes before crying imba. I swear the number of bronze league "analysis" bashing on GM players is really getting on my nerves lately.
I'm going to throw this out since a lot of people are missing the point. The charge of bias was not directed at the balance suggestions but rather at his next statement that even after the laundry list of nerfs to toss and buffs to Terran, the matchup would still favor Protoss.
How exactly? You provide no analysis, the combination of weaker protoss all-ins or aggressive options combined with a bigger window of opportunity for terran to do damage would change the balance of power slightly, perhaps force more units and defense from toss earlier, cut down on the greed and allow the terran to enter the mid game on even footing, giving them a way better fighting change.
Remember the reverse of this actually happened during HoTS. TvP was more even in the beginning of HoTS because, toss pressure options hadn't been expanded quite as much, they had pre buff warp prisms and oracles and only MSC augmented blinks on not particularly good blink maps. While Toss got stronger defensive options terran also got strong offensive options in the form of speed boost, hellbat drops and WM drops.
Slowly as HoTS progressed terran offensive options where nerfed, hellbats, WM and they where only left with speed boost. Meanwhile protoss gained a bit more in the offense department with cheaper Dark Shrine, faster warp prisms, oracles and better blink maps.
Reversing even part of those would lead a long, long way to restoring the balance of power between the two races.
Again missing the point. People are free to discuss balance suggestions on their own merit. But consider this, blizzard had a patch increasing overlord movement speed and queen range. Following that patch, almost everything about zvt or tvz changed. All the strategies and builds all changed and in ways almost nobody would have predicted. So in that light throwing out a list of 10+ balance changes and then proclaiming that you know the results is somewhat unbelievable. More so when your predicted result is toss will still be ahead.
Half the proposed changes have very limited impact. Reapers having +1 sight range, for instance, cannot break the game. Nukes dealing 750 damage to buildings instead of 500 cannot either; they're never used now, and would still be marginal even with this change. Reintroducing Moebius Reactor or partially reverting the Oracle buff [and I still left the acceleration change intact + slighly faster than the original Oracle, so you see, I am not petty at all in my changes] cannot break the game since we've already been there. Decreasing the ridiculous damage Tempests deal to Massive air targets cannot break the game since like 98+% of the TvP are decided before the Tempest stage anyway; and I don't think the new value would prevent them from slaughtering broods in PvZ. Ghosts costing 25 less minerals cannot break the game for obvious reasons.
The huge difference is also that the Queen/Overlord patch was made when TvZ was apparently balanced, while my changes would occur when TvP is as bad if not worse than end of WoL TvZ.
I am going to detail a bit what I intend to do with the more major changes (stim, warp-ins, Storm).
Look: here's the deal. Winrates are currently slightly in protoss's favor. In a game of seconds like SC2, even a slight change can have a big impact. Ghost timings just got way stronger in the game, already templar openings have gotten weaker, and we haven't seen how that will impact the matchup yet. Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, we don't know.
Reapers getting a +1 sight range is a big buff to terran scouting. Nukes dealing 750 damage to buildings can be a big buff, I don't believe nukes are weak: the reason they aren't used is that terrans generally play a hyper aggressive style and don't generally stalemate. Nukes are great for breaking stalemates. The only reason to buff their damage to buildings is to make them more useful at base harass, which they are already great at. Nukes already clear out spines/spores and cannons.
Tempest damage vs. air is entirely for PvP and PvZ, if we don't see BC's there's no point to nerfing it, I don't even know why this is on the table. Tempests need to be able to annihilate colossi.
Ghosts just got a buff, they don't need another one.
The oracle has basically disappeared from pro PvTs, why does it need a nerf? Attacks of any kind always seem overpowered when the trend of using it first appears: then people figure out how to deal with it correctly and it dies away. If we were still seeing oracle every game I would completely agree with you, but we don't. Is the oracle supposed to be useless against terran? At what point in the game is it supposed to be a worthy investment to make it?
Stop and think for a moment: if one small change can have a huge impact (queens getting a range buff, for example), think about what kind of impact other changes can get. Has it occurred to you that if you can EMP the MSC with a ghost timing, there won't be a photon overcharge, for example, or no time warp?
Delaying storm research will make templar openings non viable, especially with the buffed ghost timings. We'll be stuck going colossus openings every game where we don't all-in, which basically means we'll be dead to scv pulls again every game.
Stim research was nerfed for a reason, there's no reason to un-nerf it. It's probably the single best upgrade in the game.
No wonder you thought the changes would propel Terran to Planet Broken with your game knowledge.
Winrates: I don't care about winrates. People just need to stop with the eternal summoning of winrates. Do you know why "official winrates" were not 30 : 70 for TvZ at the end of WoL despite the imbalance being that bad? Because when a race is overpowered, bad/mediocre players are carried by the race way beyond their real level. But at some point, they meet people that are just so much better than them that they still lose despite their race being heavily favored. Thus they decrease the winrates of the overpowered race, and then people like you, who blindly look at the figures without thinking (a) about the content of the games or (b) considering who is facing who can say: look! it's between 45 and 55, it's balanced! Well no, because the 48,3% in AvB is actually top players of the race A facing subtop players of the race B, and still mostly losing despite being better.
Ghost timings just got way stronger in the midgame
Nope. Even pre-patch, the Ghosts would reach 75 energy while walking across the map (this is the case for 3 Ghosts + SCV pulls for instance), so those Ghost timings were unchanged. There is no viable Ghost timing anyway that would hit before Moebius would be done pre-patch. The main change with Moebius Reactor being free is that Cloak comes earlier, but Cloak does not guarantee you can disable spread Templars with some detection, nor does it mean your army will prevail even if most of the Storms are taken care of. Templar openings are not at all weaker after the free Moebius Reactor and will remain the main standard since they don't have the vulnerability of some Colossi styles to SCV pulls.
Reapers getting a +1 sight range is a big buff to terran scouting.
Lol. Please. It's just so that you have better chances to see the back of the base against buildings blocking access (Protoss are starting to build their gate, core and pylons in such a way Reapers have to go through the Probes, and they can trap the Reaper, preventing scouting). Reapers having 10 sight range instead of 9 won't prevent Protoss from randomly proxying a Stargate or a Dark shrine somewhere on the map, and it won't even improve the scouting issues of openings like 1-1-1 expand, 1 rax FE or CC first. The fact you dare call me biased while saying "Reapers +1 sight range is a big buff to terran scouting" is absolutely hilarious. It's a completely harmless change yet you're already raising your pitchfork as if I was giving Terran maphack, when your race has an early game flying unit with the sight radius of a scan, hallucinated Phoenixes without any research, Oracles and Observers. Entitled much?
Nukes dealing 750 damage to buildings can be a big buff, I don't believe nukes are weak
C'mon... You have to be joking. You can't even chain two Nukes in the same area against a competent opponent. This change is mostly cosmetic (it's just to make Nuke harass a bit more rewarding by lategame) yet you're already concerned it might be too strong?
Tempest damage vs. air is entirely for PvP and PvZ, if we don't see BC's there's no point to nerfing it, I don't even know why this is on the table. Tempests need to be able to annihilate colossi
Didn't it occur to you that we never see Battlecruisers precisely because Tempests would one-shot them from the safety of the Protoss deathball? The Tempest change is aimed at giving Terran a possibility in lategame, one they had in WoL; it would still be extremely rare as Battlecruisers transitions would be very difficult, and Feedback would still be a pain or at least disable Yamato through self-removal of the energy, yet again for such a minor change you're already summoning the holy Grail of the excuses to skip Protoss nerfs, aka PvP. Guess what? I don't care about PvP. At all. It's a mirror match-up, thus by definition imbalance cannot be an issue; unless the changes make it as obnoxious as 2011 PvP or TvT during the days of 2-4 Hellbat drops, the non-mirror match-up is by far the priority. Or what would you say to Zergs advocating 100/25 hydras just because it might make ZvZ vaguely better? Would you accept getting trashed each game by unstoppable hydras timings just so 5 extra viewers might not skip the exciting "who has the better concave" games between Tefel and Lambo?
Ghosts just got a buff, they don't need another one.
They do. They're too expensive. A cheaper Ghost would also help a bit Terran by lategame when they try to build the extremely expensive Ghosts/Vikings armies. I propose only -25 minerals, does it sound like something game-breaking? 500 extra minerals for 20 Ghosts is hardly the height of luxury.
The oracle has basically disappeared from pro PvTs, why does it need a nerf?
What? You live in fairy tales if you think Oracles have disappeared. That being said, technically you're right but for the wrong reason. Why do we see less Oracles lately in Korean PvTs? Because Oracles are "figured out" and weak? No, because Blink is even more broken on some maps. Thus Protoss players skip Stargate and opt for the best strategy, building a Council into Terran being in pain, wondering if Protoss is committing, taking a third or teching Storm. As for why Oracles need a nerf, ask your Protoss comrades: many of them are literally begging for the Oracle buff to be reverted.
Has it occurred to you that if you can EMP the MSC with a ghost timing, there won't be a photon overcharge, for example, or no time warp?
Yeah, right. Perhaps in Gold league games, the MSC is lazily idling one screen ahead of the natural, graciously waiting to be EMP'ed, but at high level it's always safely parked in such a way it's absolutely unreachable and can swiftly cast PO at the natural. See below:
On February 06 2014 04:20 noSec wrote: Hey guys, With the new patch is it possible to do something like an early "Marine, Ghost Stim timing push" ? Maybe revamp that 10 minutes push...
Nope. Ghost stim timings are dead since the EMP nerf and they will not come back since they exploited the fact Protoss' defence relied on 4-6 Sentries at this time (with the old radius of EMP being wide enough to remove every bit of shield and energy if the Protoss army was caught in a ball). The MSC is out of reach and you would sacrifice so much to have those 2 Ghosts that Protoss would have no troubles defending your push with PO + his units, even if his Sentries are nullified.
Delaying storm research will make templar openings non viable, especially with the buffed ghost timings.
Nope, see the already huge differences in Storm timings in the existing builds (meaning there's no razor-edge critical timing, even against 5 rax pressure) + the arguments above about why early Ghosts timings are not viable.
Stim research was nerfed for a reason, there's no reason to un-nerf it.
Stim research was nerfed in March 2011, when there were still maps like Metalopolis and Xel'Naga Caverns in the map pool, i. e. short rush distance and wide open natural which of course made Forcefield-based defence a nightmare against things like 3 rax timings. Are we still here now? No. Long gone are those days. Thus there is every reason to un-nerf one of the main Terran anti-allin tools, especially as it can also fix, if only by threat, the current impunity of some Protoss openings.
Parting vs TY on Frost is the PERFECT example that once Protoss does not make too many mistakes, Terran cannot win the GAME! Literally, has absolutely 0 chances.
Korean qualifiers shows also another thing, once 2 players are evenly matched T will most probably lose: TY - Parting, Flash - Zest, Inno - Soulkey, Bbyong - Soulkey etc, and it is all after the patch.
Also today Lennock showed how to counter mech. 40 mutas counter like unlimited number of Thors :-)
On February 08 2014 06:38 TW wrote: Parting vs TY on Frost is the PERFECT example that once Protoss does not make too many mistakes, Terran cannot win the GAME! Literally, has absolutely 0 chances.
Korean qualifiers shows also another thing, once 2 players are evenly matched T will most probably lose: TY - Parting, Flash - Zest, Inno - Soulkey, Bbyong - Soulkey etc, and it is all after the patch.
Also today Lennock showed how to counter mech. 40 mutas counter like unlimited number of Thors :-)
On February 08 2014 06:38 TW wrote: Parting vs TY on Frost is the PERFECT example that once Protoss does not make too many mistakes, Terran cannot win the GAME! Literally, has absolutely 0 chances.
Korean qualifiers shows also another thing, once 2 players are evenly matched T will most probably lose: TY - Parting, Flash - Zest, Inno - Soulkey, Bbyong - Soulkey etc, and it is all after the patch.
Also today Lennock showed how to counter mech. 40 mutas counter like unlimited number of Thors :-)
It was not really unlimited, more like 8-9.
More precisely, it was 12 thors, which is to say that mutas trade with thors roughly supply-efficiently. The only way you will win a large-scale thor v muta fight is when you have way more supply in thors than the Z has in muta (workers sacked, timing, etc).
I'm not certain about the role of upgrades, though. Soulkey v Inno showed that 3-3 muta versus 3-3 thor seemed to be more lopsided towards the muta. Supernova cancelled Leenock's +2 armor upgrade, so I think the fight was 2-2 thors v 2-1 muta (can't check this now).
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Exactly. Nerfing builds like blink/oracle only makes the game more dull and bland. Give Terran the tools to respond and not be to far behind and we get a better game as a whole.
What would an example of such a "tool" be? Also fun how Terran should not be "to far behind" Just... Behind
It's an all in, if the Terran comes out ahead every time, it's a crappy all in.
And scouting solves a lot of problems. Most if the races can stop anything if they can see it comming. The problem is Protoss gets map control up until the all in hits.
I call BS on that. Do protoss even scout in PvT anymore? And I am not talking about the MsC.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Exactly. Nerfing builds like blink/oracle only makes the game more dull and bland. Give Terran the tools to respond and not be to far behind and we get a better game as a whole.
What would an example of such a "tool" be? Also fun how Terran should not be "to far behind" Just... Behind
It's an all in, if the Terran comes out ahead every time, it's a crappy all in.
And scouting solves a lot of problems. Most if the races can stop anything if they can see it comming. The problem is Protoss gets map control up until the all in hits.
I call BS on that. Do protoss even scout in PvT anymore? And I am not talking about the MsC.
Yes? Every Protoss I have watched in a proffesional game has scouted in some way or another.
Also, they could revert that hellbat nerf and things would be ok, I think. I miss the hellbat.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
The argumentation they used was because Hellbats were too powerful in TvT. They nerfed them to TvZ levels. Lol.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Like, warhound/hellbat/widow mine/about every WOL nerf to terran. Yep, makes sense. You are indeed right - the game is worse as a result, but that is because in a decently fair matchup one race got it's options cut and weakened while the other his options expanded and strenghtened. Guess once what happens if you do that?
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
Hold that shotgun - Current Hellbat attack allows +1 armor No CS marines that used Stimpack to survive 2 hellbat attacks - That is an important benchmark and happens very often =P?
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
acutally, if you buff the range on missle turrets. that would help a lot vs oracles and mutas.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
Hold that shotgun - Current Hellbat attack allows +1 armor No CS marines that used Stimpack to survive 2 hellbat attacks - That is an important benchmark and happens very often =P?
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
except they can buff bunker repair rate without unsetting TvZ since you won't have 5-6 scvs for 11-11s. The problem is protoss focus fire takes down bunkers too fast.
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
acutally, if you buff the range on missle turrets. that would help a lot vs oracles and mutas.
It really wouldn't: Oracles can't handle the turret. Mutalisk either overpower it or do not. In none of the occasions, Range matters if you didn't mass turrets.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
Hold that shotgun - Current Hellbat attack allows +1 armor No CS marines that used Stimpack to survive 2 hellbat attacks - That is an important benchmark and happens very often =P?
Nope, this kind of scenario is unlikely.
It's the only benchmark I can possibly think of for the 18 damage that would affect Tvt and wouldn't affect TvZ TvP, like DK promised.....
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
except they can buff bunker repair rate without unsetting TvZ since you won't have 5-6 scvs for 11-11s. The problem is protoss focus fire takes down bunkers too fast.
In fact, it happens quite regularly Terrans use the 2 Rax SCVs + 3 scvs from the main to bunkerrush. I don't think you can increase the repair rate early game, really. 11/11 is more of a fine line than you'd often think.
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
except they can buff bunker repair rate without unsetting TvZ since you won't have 5-6 scvs for 11-11s. The problem is protoss focus fire takes down bunkers too fast.
But you would need quite a ridiculous repair rate to properly hold Voidrays, Immortals or even 12+ stalks. (;
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
Hold that shotgun - Current Hellbat attack allows +1 armor No CS marines that used Stimpack to survive 2 hellbat attacks - That is an important benchmark and happens very often =P?
Nope, this kind of scenario is unlikely.
It's the only benchmark I can possibly think of for the 18 damage that would affect Tvt and wouldn't affect TvZ TvP, like DK promised.....
The 18 damage was chosen so that unupgraded Hellbats kill unupgraded Zerglings in 2 shots.
lol @ ppl saying "no don't nerf blink, just make it easier for terran to scout and hold"
You do realize that's the same thing? When I say nerf, I don't mean "make blink take longer or nerf stalkers" directly... nerfing a strategy can be any solution, from nerfing the units that are used within it (this goes for stalkers and mothership core, vision of MSC for example) the abilities that are used within it (blink and time warp, which was already nerfed) or buffing the response to it (better scouting, earlier stim, etc etc)
Nobody can make a legitimate argument that blink all-in as a strategy is fine. Nobody is saying the blink ability needs nerfing directly. Making this distinction is probably a good idea before arguing.
On February 08 2014 07:17 TW wrote: I don't know why balance team has never considered slightly buffing turrets. It would help Terrans a lot. Anyone has any ideas?
Buffing Turrets is so dangerous: - Bio vs Mech balance - Oracles viability - Phoenix viability - 2 base Spire - Banshees Just to name a few - You do shut down a lot if you give them a damage/splash buff. Still, there is NO reason to buff turrets flat out, maybe with a lategame upgrade, but Turrets are not too weak in ther current state: the problem is NOT Turrets not dealing their damage and doing their Job - they're marvelous at that. The problem is recognising when you need them.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Exactly. Nerfing builds like blink/oracle only makes the game more dull and bland. Give Terran the tools to respond and not be to far behind and we get a better game as a whole.
What would an example of such a "tool" be? Also fun how Terran should not be "to far behind" Just... Behind
It's an all in, if the Terran comes out ahead every time, it's a crappy all in.
And scouting solves a lot of problems. Most if the races can stop anything if they can see it comming. The problem is Protoss gets map control up until the all in hits.
I call BS on that. Do protoss even scout in PvT anymore? And I am not talking about the MsC.
Yes? Every Protoss I have watched in a proffesional game has scouted in some way or another.
Also, they could revert that hellbat nerf and things would be ok, I think. I miss the hellbat.
I actually liked most of the suggestions by TheDwf a few pages back. I won't go into detail on all of them, and i don't think that implementing all of them at the same time would be a good idea. Especially the stim, warp in time, and tank change appeals to me quite a bit. I can imagine the stim change would open up some possiblities in tvz too.
I do find it hard to estimate the magnitude of these effects, though.
On February 08 2014 01:34 Glorfindel! wrote: Stardust replies: Son Suk hee @StardustSC2 48 min
@M_Dayshi i agree pvt is broken but how to fix.. will be super hard to fix
Honestly it seems rather trivial to balance TvP... Without even touching much to Photon Overcharge, there's a lot to do. Just some examples of what they could do:
Protoss General Warp-in time increased to 8 seconds, up from 5.
Mothership Core Hit points decreased to 60/105, down from 60/135. Sight range decreased to 9, down from 14. Photon Overcharge casting range decreased to 7, down from 10.
Oracle Movement speed decreased to 3.5, down from 4.
Storm Search time increased to 140 seconds, up from 110.
Tempest Damage to Massive air targets decreased to 50 (+5), down from 80 (+5).
Terran Stim Search time decreased to 140 seconds, down from 170.
Ghost Cost decreased to 175/100, down from 200/100.
Reaper Sight range increased to 10, up from 9.
Ghost Academy Moebius Reactor reintroduced. Tactical Nukes now deal 750 damage, up from 500, in the center of the radius.
And if you want some mech as a bonus:
Tanks Now deal +15 damage to Massive targets while in Siege Mode.
Immortal Hardened shield has been reworked. It still reduces damage from 10-20 to 10, but any attack dealing more than 20 damage is halved instead of reduced to 10.
On February 08 2014 07:17 TW wrote: I don't know why balance team has never considered slightly buffing turrets. It would help Terrans a lot. Anyone has any ideas?
Buffing Turrets is so dangerous: - Bio vs Mech balance - Oracles viability - Phoenix viability - 2 base Spire - Banshees Just to name a few - You do shut down a lot if you give them a damage/splash buff. Still, there is NO reason to buff turrets flat out, maybe with a lategame upgrade, but Turrets are not too weak in ther current state: the problem is NOT Turrets not dealing their damage and doing their Job - they're marvelous at that. The problem is recognising when you need them.
Well, if the range for the turret in the middle of the mineral line covers all SCVs (including the ones on gas), that would help with the oracle. The thing is, if you have 1 turret in the mineral line, the protoss can still get kills on the gas SCVs as well as SCV going to make buildings.
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
except they can buff bunker repair rate without unsetting TvZ since you won't have 5-6 scvs for 11-11s. The problem is protoss focus fire takes down bunkers too fast.
But you would need quite a ridiculous repair rate to properly hold Voidrays, Immortals or even 12+ stalks. (;
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
Hold that shotgun - Current Hellbat attack allows +1 armor No CS marines that used Stimpack to survive 2 hellbat attacks - That is an important benchmark and happens very often =P?
Nope, this kind of scenario is unlikely.
It's the only benchmark I can possibly think of for the 18 damage that would affect Tvt and wouldn't affect TvZ TvP, like DK promised.....
The 18 damage was chosen so that unupgraded Hellbats kill unupgraded Zerglings in 2 shots.
As always, we’ve been keeping a close eye on the balance of things, and have decided to address the issues concerning Terran and the Hellbat.
Here are our thoughts:
1. Hellbat drops are mainly an issue for TvT.
2. Terran isn't over performing so while nerfing Hellbats, we’d like to simultaneously push a buff to the Banshee.
3. We think seeing less Hellbat play in the early mid game is not a bad thing, as other Terran harass options are a lot more interesting to watch.
4. This change will also address any other lingering concerns we may have with Hellbats outside of TvT when it comes to early mid game.
So overall, we believe the changes we've been testing in the balance test map are solid for Hellbats: Attack damage decreased from 18 +12 vs. light to 18. The Infernal Pre-Igniter upgrade increases attack damage from 18 to 18 +12 vs. light.
Banshee changes on the other hand, we're planning on going ahead with just the cost reduction change only: Cloaking Field research cost decreased from 200/200 to 100/100
Let us know if you have any feedback. We are looking to implement these changes sometime this week.
He clearly states he is nerfing for TvT. Why did he nerf the Hellbat to a level where it'd barely not affect Zerglings? 18 damage +3/4 light would not have changed a thing in the other matchups but would be fine in TvT. Meanwhile, the cloak buff was bullshit already because of how accessible detection became because of the Mine.
That patch was a flat out slap in the face for Terran, worded to make it seem like it improved TvT, while in fact cutting a good strategy out of TvZ/TvP.
On February 08 2014 07:17 TW wrote: I don't know why balance team has never considered slightly buffing turrets. It would help Terrans a lot. Anyone has any ideas?
Buffing Turrets is so dangerous: - Bio vs Mech balance - Oracles viability - Phoenix viability - 2 base Spire - Banshees Just to name a few - You do shut down a lot if you give them a damage/splash buff. Still, there is NO reason to buff turrets flat out, maybe with a lategame upgrade, but Turrets are not too weak in ther current state: the problem is NOT Turrets not dealing their damage and doing their Job - they're marvelous at that. The problem is recognising when you need them.
Well, if the range for the turret in the middle of the mineral line covers all SCVs (including the ones on gas), that would help with the oracle. The thing is, if you have 1 turret in the mineral line, the protoss can still get kills on the gas SCVs as well as SCV going to make buildings.
Going to make buildings would requre 20 range. On the gas. It's fair for the Oracle to still be able to do some damage, the damage on Gas/end of the mineral line can be mitigated with some marines for extra defense or by reacting in time. Turrets make Oracle harrass hard, they don't shut it down. That's a good thing.
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
except they can buff bunker repair rate without unsetting TvZ since you won't have 5-6 scvs for 11-11s. The problem is protoss focus fire takes down bunkers too fast.
But you would need quite a ridiculous repair rate to properly hold Voidrays, Immortals or even 12+ stalks. (;
On February 08 2014 07:16 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:12 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:10 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:01 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:59 hipo wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:57 vthree wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:14 aZealot wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:01 ffadicted wrote: [quote]
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
Hold that shotgun - Current Hellbat attack allows +1 armor No CS marines that used Stimpack to survive 2 hellbat attacks - That is an important benchmark and happens very often =P?
Nope, this kind of scenario is unlikely.
It's the only benchmark I can possibly think of for the 18 damage that would affect Tvt and wouldn't affect TvZ TvP, like DK promised.....
The 18 damage was chosen so that unupgraded Hellbats kill unupgraded Zerglings in 2 shots.
As always, we’ve been keeping a close eye on the balance of things, and have decided to address the issues concerning Terran and the Hellbat.
Here are our thoughts:
1. Hellbat drops are mainly an issue for TvT.
2. Terran isn't over performing so while nerfing Hellbats, we’d like to simultaneously push a buff to the Banshee.
3. We think seeing less Hellbat play in the early mid game is not a bad thing, as other Terran harass options are a lot more interesting to watch.
4. This change will also address any other lingering concerns we may have with Hellbats outside of TvT when it comes to early mid game.
So overall, we believe the changes we've been testing in the balance test map are solid for Hellbats: Attack damage decreased from 18 +12 vs. light to 18. The Infernal Pre-Igniter upgrade increases attack damage from 18 to 18 +12 vs. light.
Banshee changes on the other hand, we're planning on going ahead with just the cost reduction change only: Cloaking Field research cost decreased from 200/200 to 100/100
Let us know if you have any feedback. We are looking to implement these changes sometime this week.
He clearly states he is nerfing for TvT. Why did he nerf the Hellbat to a level where it'd barely not affect Zerglings? 18 damage +3/4 light would not have changed a thing in the other matchups but would be fine in TvT. Meanwhile, the cloak buff was bullshit already because of how accessible detection became because of the Mine.
That patch was a flat out slap in the face for Terran, worded to make it seem like it improved TvT, while in fact cutting a good strategy out of TvZ/TvP.
To be honest, i didn't like the hellbat one bit. I'm glad it's pretty much out of sight. That there was no compensation for lost strength; yeah, I can agree.
On February 08 2014 07:21 Yorbon wrote: I actually liked most of the suggestions by TheDwf a few pages back. I won't go into detail on all of them, and i don't think that implementing all of them at the same time would be a good idea. Especially the stim, warp in time, and tank change appeals to me quite a bit. I can imagine the stim change would open up some possiblities in tvz too.
I do find it hard to estimate the magnitude of these effects, though.
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
except they can buff bunker repair rate without unsetting TvZ since you won't have 5-6 scvs for 11-11s. The problem is protoss focus fire takes down bunkers too fast.
But you would need quite a ridiculous repair rate to properly hold Voidrays, Immortals or even 12+ stalks. (;
On February 08 2014 07:16 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:12 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:10 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:01 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:59 hipo wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:57 vthree wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:14 aZealot wrote: [quote]
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
Hold that shotgun - Current Hellbat attack allows +1 armor No CS marines that used Stimpack to survive 2 hellbat attacks - That is an important benchmark and happens very often =P?
Nope, this kind of scenario is unlikely.
It's the only benchmark I can possibly think of for the 18 damage that would affect Tvt and wouldn't affect TvZ TvP, like DK promised.....
The 18 damage was chosen so that unupgraded Hellbats kill unupgraded Zerglings in 2 shots.
As always, we’ve been keeping a close eye on the balance of things, and have decided to address the issues concerning Terran and the Hellbat.
Here are our thoughts:
1. Hellbat drops are mainly an issue for TvT.
2. Terran isn't over performing so while nerfing Hellbats, we’d like to simultaneously push a buff to the Banshee.
3. We think seeing less Hellbat play in the early mid game is not a bad thing, as other Terran harass options are a lot more interesting to watch.
4. This change will also address any other lingering concerns we may have with Hellbats outside of TvT when it comes to early mid game.
So overall, we believe the changes we've been testing in the balance test map are solid for Hellbats: Attack damage decreased from 18 +12 vs. light to 18. The Infernal Pre-Igniter upgrade increases attack damage from 18 to 18 +12 vs. light.
Banshee changes on the other hand, we're planning on going ahead with just the cost reduction change only: Cloaking Field research cost decreased from 200/200 to 100/100
Let us know if you have any feedback. We are looking to implement these changes sometime this week.
He clearly states he is nerfing for TvT. Why did he nerf the Hellbat to a level where it'd barely not affect Zerglings? 18 damage +3/4 light would not have changed a thing in the other matchups but would be fine in TvT. Meanwhile, the cloak buff was bullshit already because of how accessible detection became because of the Mine.
That patch was a flat out slap in the face for Terran, worded to make it seem like it improved TvT, while in fact cutting a good strategy out of TvZ/TvP.
To be honest, i didn't like the hellbat one bit. I'm glad it's pretty much out of sight. That there was no compensation for lost strength, I can agree with that.
You miss my point. I'm happy the Hellbat doesn't dominate TvT the way it used too (MAN was I bad vs those xD). BUT - the arguments used (TvT) DO NOT EXPLAIN the magnitute of the nerf.
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
except they can buff bunker repair rate without unsetting TvZ since you won't have 5-6 scvs for 11-11s. The problem is protoss focus fire takes down bunkers too fast.
But you would need quite a ridiculous repair rate to properly hold Voidrays, Immortals or even 12+ stalks. (;
On February 08 2014 07:16 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:12 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:10 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:01 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:59 hipo wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:57 vthree wrote: [quote]
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
Hold that shotgun - Current Hellbat attack allows +1 armor No CS marines that used Stimpack to survive 2 hellbat attacks - That is an important benchmark and happens very often =P?
Nope, this kind of scenario is unlikely.
It's the only benchmark I can possibly think of for the 18 damage that would affect Tvt and wouldn't affect TvZ TvP, like DK promised.....
The 18 damage was chosen so that unupgraded Hellbats kill unupgraded Zerglings in 2 shots.
As always, we’ve been keeping a close eye on the balance of things, and have decided to address the issues concerning Terran and the Hellbat.
Here are our thoughts:
1. Hellbat drops are mainly an issue for TvT.
2. Terran isn't over performing so while nerfing Hellbats, we’d like to simultaneously push a buff to the Banshee.
3. We think seeing less Hellbat play in the early mid game is not a bad thing, as other Terran harass options are a lot more interesting to watch.
4. This change will also address any other lingering concerns we may have with Hellbats outside of TvT when it comes to early mid game.
So overall, we believe the changes we've been testing in the balance test map are solid for Hellbats: Attack damage decreased from 18 +12 vs. light to 18. The Infernal Pre-Igniter upgrade increases attack damage from 18 to 18 +12 vs. light.
Banshee changes on the other hand, we're planning on going ahead with just the cost reduction change only: Cloaking Field research cost decreased from 200/200 to 100/100
Let us know if you have any feedback. We are looking to implement these changes sometime this week.
He clearly states he is nerfing for TvT. Why did he nerf the Hellbat to a level where it'd barely not affect Zerglings? 18 damage +3/4 light would not have changed a thing in the other matchups but would be fine in TvT. Meanwhile, the cloak buff was bullshit already because of how accessible detection became because of the Mine.
That patch was a flat out slap in the face for Terran, worded to make it seem like it improved TvT, while in fact cutting a good strategy out of TvZ/TvP.
To be honest, i didn't like the hellbat one bit. I'm glad it's pretty much out of sight. That there was no compensation for lost strength, I can agree with that.
You miss my point. I'm happy the Hellbat doesn't dominate TvT the way it used too (MAN was I bad vs those xD). BUT - the arguments used (TvT) DO NOT EXPLAIN the magnitute of the nerf.
Oops, indeed. I misread it a bit. Sorry.
@ toasties other post: I meant another post, although the 2 aren't unrelated :'). I edited the one i meant in my original post.
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
except they can buff bunker repair rate without unsetting TvZ since you won't have 5-6 scvs for 11-11s. The problem is protoss focus fire takes down bunkers too fast.
But you would need quite a ridiculous repair rate to properly hold Voidrays, Immortals or even 12+ stalks. (;
On February 08 2014 07:16 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:12 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:10 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:01 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:59 hipo wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:57 vthree wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:14 aZealot wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:01 ffadicted wrote: [quote]
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
Hold that shotgun - Current Hellbat attack allows +1 armor No CS marines that used Stimpack to survive 2 hellbat attacks - That is an important benchmark and happens very often =P?
Nope, this kind of scenario is unlikely.
It's the only benchmark I can possibly think of for the 18 damage that would affect Tvt and wouldn't affect TvZ TvP, like DK promised.....
The 18 damage was chosen so that unupgraded Hellbats kill unupgraded Zerglings in 2 shots.
As always, we’ve been keeping a close eye on the balance of things, and have decided to address the issues concerning Terran and the Hellbat.
Here are our thoughts:
1. Hellbat drops are mainly an issue for TvT.
2. Terran isn't over performing so while nerfing Hellbats, we’d like to simultaneously push a buff to the Banshee.
3. We think seeing less Hellbat play in the early mid game is not a bad thing, as other Terran harass options are a lot more interesting to watch.
4. This change will also address any other lingering concerns we may have with Hellbats outside of TvT when it comes to early mid game.
So overall, we believe the changes we've been testing in the balance test map are solid for Hellbats: Attack damage decreased from 18 +12 vs. light to 18. The Infernal Pre-Igniter upgrade increases attack damage from 18 to 18 +12 vs. light.
Banshee changes on the other hand, we're planning on going ahead with just the cost reduction change only: Cloaking Field research cost decreased from 200/200 to 100/100
Let us know if you have any feedback. We are looking to implement these changes sometime this week.
He clearly states he is nerfing for TvT. Why did he nerf the Hellbat to a level where it'd barely not affect Zerglings? 18 damage +3/4 light would not have changed a thing in the other matchups but would be fine in TvT. Meanwhile, the cloak buff was bullshit already because of how accessible detection became because of the Mine.
That patch was a flat out slap in the face for Terran, worded to make it seem like it improved TvT, while in fact cutting a good strategy out of TvZ/TvP.
As always, there's quite a huge gap between what they do, what they think they're doing and what really happens. I'm sure they just thought they were merely helping the poor Gold Zergs that did not know how to defend Hellion raids in May 2012. I'm also certain they did not even think about the impact of the Mine nerf on 1-1-1 openings in TvP, for instance. There are just so many things they overlook when they make changes.
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
except they can buff bunker repair rate without unsetting TvZ since you won't have 5-6 scvs for 11-11s. The problem is protoss focus fire takes down bunkers too fast.
But you would need quite a ridiculous repair rate to properly hold Voidrays, Immortals or even 12+ stalks. (;
On February 08 2014 07:16 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:12 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:10 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:01 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:59 hipo wrote: [quote] Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
Hold that shotgun - Current Hellbat attack allows +1 armor No CS marines that used Stimpack to survive 2 hellbat attacks - That is an important benchmark and happens very often =P?
Nope, this kind of scenario is unlikely.
It's the only benchmark I can possibly think of for the 18 damage that would affect Tvt and wouldn't affect TvZ TvP, like DK promised.....
The 18 damage was chosen so that unupgraded Hellbats kill unupgraded Zerglings in 2 shots.
As always, we’ve been keeping a close eye on the balance of things, and have decided to address the issues concerning Terran and the Hellbat.
Here are our thoughts:
1. Hellbat drops are mainly an issue for TvT.
2. Terran isn't over performing so while nerfing Hellbats, we’d like to simultaneously push a buff to the Banshee.
3. We think seeing less Hellbat play in the early mid game is not a bad thing, as other Terran harass options are a lot more interesting to watch.
4. This change will also address any other lingering concerns we may have with Hellbats outside of TvT when it comes to early mid game.
So overall, we believe the changes we've been testing in the balance test map are solid for Hellbats: Attack damage decreased from 18 +12 vs. light to 18. The Infernal Pre-Igniter upgrade increases attack damage from 18 to 18 +12 vs. light.
Banshee changes on the other hand, we're planning on going ahead with just the cost reduction change only: Cloaking Field research cost decreased from 200/200 to 100/100
Let us know if you have any feedback. We are looking to implement these changes sometime this week.
He clearly states he is nerfing for TvT. Why did he nerf the Hellbat to a level where it'd barely not affect Zerglings? 18 damage +3/4 light would not have changed a thing in the other matchups but would be fine in TvT. Meanwhile, the cloak buff was bullshit already because of how accessible detection became because of the Mine.
That patch was a flat out slap in the face for Terran, worded to make it seem like it improved TvT, while in fact cutting a good strategy out of TvZ/TvP.
To be honest, i didn't like the hellbat one bit. I'm glad it's pretty much out of sight. That there was no compensation for lost strength, I can agree with that.
You miss my point. I'm happy the Hellbat doesn't dominate TvT the way it used too (MAN was I bad vs those xD). BUT - the arguments used (TvT) DO NOT EXPLAIN the magnitute of the nerf.
Oops, indeed. I misread it a bit. Sorry.
@ toasties other post: I meant another post, although the 2 aren't unrelated :'). I edited the one i meant in my original post.
OK =D! I always like to see such a link, makes sure I get the right post (which in this case, I clearly didn't haha!)
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
except they can buff bunker repair rate without unsetting TvZ since you won't have 5-6 scvs for 11-11s. The problem is protoss focus fire takes down bunkers too fast.
But you would need quite a ridiculous repair rate to properly hold Voidrays, Immortals or even 12+ stalks. (;
On February 08 2014 07:16 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:12 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:10 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:01 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:59 hipo wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:57 vthree wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:14 aZealot wrote: [quote]
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
Hold that shotgun - Current Hellbat attack allows +1 armor No CS marines that used Stimpack to survive 2 hellbat attacks - That is an important benchmark and happens very often =P?
Nope, this kind of scenario is unlikely.
It's the only benchmark I can possibly think of for the 18 damage that would affect Tvt and wouldn't affect TvZ TvP, like DK promised.....
The 18 damage was chosen so that unupgraded Hellbats kill unupgraded Zerglings in 2 shots.
As always, we’ve been keeping a close eye on the balance of things, and have decided to address the issues concerning Terran and the Hellbat.
Here are our thoughts:
1. Hellbat drops are mainly an issue for TvT.
2. Terran isn't over performing so while nerfing Hellbats, we’d like to simultaneously push a buff to the Banshee.
3. We think seeing less Hellbat play in the early mid game is not a bad thing, as other Terran harass options are a lot more interesting to watch.
4. This change will also address any other lingering concerns we may have with Hellbats outside of TvT when it comes to early mid game.
So overall, we believe the changes we've been testing in the balance test map are solid for Hellbats: Attack damage decreased from 18 +12 vs. light to 18. The Infernal Pre-Igniter upgrade increases attack damage from 18 to 18 +12 vs. light.
Banshee changes on the other hand, we're planning on going ahead with just the cost reduction change only: Cloaking Field research cost decreased from 200/200 to 100/100
Let us know if you have any feedback. We are looking to implement these changes sometime this week.
He clearly states he is nerfing for TvT. Why did he nerf the Hellbat to a level where it'd barely not affect Zerglings? 18 damage +3/4 light would not have changed a thing in the other matchups but would be fine in TvT. Meanwhile, the cloak buff was bullshit already because of how accessible detection became because of the Mine.
That patch was a flat out slap in the face for Terran, worded to make it seem like it improved TvT, while in fact cutting a good strategy out of TvZ/TvP.
To be honest, i didn't like the hellbat one bit. I'm glad it's pretty much out of sight. That there was no compensation for lost strength, I can agree with that.
It still had some potential as a meatshield/counter of sorts to heavy chargelot styles.
Anyway, speaking of what I consider anachronistic nerfs that can be reverted, what do you folks feel about the following?
1. Experiment with a stim research time buff. The nerf was a good move consider the map pool and the styles of the time, I'm not sure it's necessary anymore. Bar timing attacks, it would be mostly IMO a buff to Terran defensive play against things like Blink allins.
2. Revert the cost reduction to Protoss upgrades from +2 onwards. The +1 cost is pretty nice atm, it's a real staple of pressure builds vs Zergs. Considering that this buff went through in an era where Protoss needed a high sentry count relative to today and therefore a high gas expenditure, whereas now that is less the case I don't see a good reason for those costs to remain. All Protoss ground shares upgrades as well, Protoss can chrono upgrades as it is, those are big enough advantages without the costs being what they are. It may make hardcore Protoss turtling on 2 base while getting tech + upgrades a little less efficient and force Protoss to expand slightly more aggressively, giving Terrans a bit more to work with in the midgame.
3. Decrease the MSC sight range. I consider this value to have been created while the MSC was still rooted to the Nexus in beta. Whoever pointed this out, I think you're on the money. Psionic overcharge range correlating with the vision range of something that could originally only be placed ON a nexus is the only explanation I can come up with as to why the vision range is quite so high.
4. Revert the Oracle speed buff. Not really an anachronistic unit value, but one that didn't need changed. I would however make it more responsive and microable, with maybe an acceleration increase, or even looking at some of Lalush's ideas on air unit micro.
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
except they can buff bunker repair rate without unsetting TvZ since you won't have 5-6 scvs for 11-11s. The problem is protoss focus fire takes down bunkers too fast.
But you would need quite a ridiculous repair rate to properly hold Voidrays, Immortals or even 12+ stalks. (;
On February 08 2014 07:16 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:12 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:10 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:01 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:59 hipo wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:57 vthree wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:14 aZealot wrote: [quote]
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
Hold that shotgun - Current Hellbat attack allows +1 armor No CS marines that used Stimpack to survive 2 hellbat attacks - That is an important benchmark and happens very often =P?
Nope, this kind of scenario is unlikely.
It's the only benchmark I can possibly think of for the 18 damage that would affect Tvt and wouldn't affect TvZ TvP, like DK promised.....
The 18 damage was chosen so that unupgraded Hellbats kill unupgraded Zerglings in 2 shots.
As always, we’ve been keeping a close eye on the balance of things, and have decided to address the issues concerning Terran and the Hellbat.
Here are our thoughts:
1. Hellbat drops are mainly an issue for TvT.
2. Terran isn't over performing so while nerfing Hellbats, we’d like to simultaneously push a buff to the Banshee.
3. We think seeing less Hellbat play in the early mid game is not a bad thing, as other Terran harass options are a lot more interesting to watch.
4. This change will also address any other lingering concerns we may have with Hellbats outside of TvT when it comes to early mid game.
So overall, we believe the changes we've been testing in the balance test map are solid for Hellbats: Attack damage decreased from 18 +12 vs. light to 18. The Infernal Pre-Igniter upgrade increases attack damage from 18 to 18 +12 vs. light.
Banshee changes on the other hand, we're planning on going ahead with just the cost reduction change only: Cloaking Field research cost decreased from 200/200 to 100/100
Let us know if you have any feedback. We are looking to implement these changes sometime this week.
He clearly states he is nerfing for TvT. Why did he nerf the Hellbat to a level where it'd barely not affect Zerglings? 18 damage +3/4 light would not have changed a thing in the other matchups but would be fine in TvT. Meanwhile, the cloak buff was bullshit already because of how accessible detection became because of the Mine.
That patch was a flat out slap in the face for Terran, worded to make it seem like it improved TvT, while in fact cutting a good strategy out of TvZ/TvP.
As always, there's quite a huge gap between what they do, what they think they're doing and what really happens. I'm sure they just thought they were merely helping the poor Gold Zergs that did not know how to defend Hellion raids in May 2012. I'm also certain they did not even think about the impact of the Mine nerf on 1-1-1 openings in TvP, for instance. There are just so many things they overlook when they make changes.
They also tend to overlook a lot of things when they aren't making changes. See Swarmhosts...
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
except they can buff bunker repair rate without unsetting TvZ since you won't have 5-6 scvs for 11-11s. The problem is protoss focus fire takes down bunkers too fast.
But you would need quite a ridiculous repair rate to properly hold Voidrays, Immortals or even 12+ stalks. (;
On February 08 2014 07:16 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:12 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:10 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:01 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:59 hipo wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:57 vthree wrote: [quote]
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
Hold that shotgun - Current Hellbat attack allows +1 armor No CS marines that used Stimpack to survive 2 hellbat attacks - That is an important benchmark and happens very often =P?
Nope, this kind of scenario is unlikely.
It's the only benchmark I can possibly think of for the 18 damage that would affect Tvt and wouldn't affect TvZ TvP, like DK promised.....
The 18 damage was chosen so that unupgraded Hellbats kill unupgraded Zerglings in 2 shots.
As always, we’ve been keeping a close eye on the balance of things, and have decided to address the issues concerning Terran and the Hellbat.
Here are our thoughts:
1. Hellbat drops are mainly an issue for TvT.
2. Terran isn't over performing so while nerfing Hellbats, we’d like to simultaneously push a buff to the Banshee.
3. We think seeing less Hellbat play in the early mid game is not a bad thing, as other Terran harass options are a lot more interesting to watch.
4. This change will also address any other lingering concerns we may have with Hellbats outside of TvT when it comes to early mid game.
So overall, we believe the changes we've been testing in the balance test map are solid for Hellbats: Attack damage decreased from 18 +12 vs. light to 18. The Infernal Pre-Igniter upgrade increases attack damage from 18 to 18 +12 vs. light.
Banshee changes on the other hand, we're planning on going ahead with just the cost reduction change only: Cloaking Field research cost decreased from 200/200 to 100/100
Let us know if you have any feedback. We are looking to implement these changes sometime this week.
He clearly states he is nerfing for TvT. Why did he nerf the Hellbat to a level where it'd barely not affect Zerglings? 18 damage +3/4 light would not have changed a thing in the other matchups but would be fine in TvT. Meanwhile, the cloak buff was bullshit already because of how accessible detection became because of the Mine.
That patch was a flat out slap in the face for Terran, worded to make it seem like it improved TvT, while in fact cutting a good strategy out of TvZ/TvP.
To be honest, i didn't like the hellbat one bit. I'm glad it's pretty much out of sight. That there was no compensation for lost strength, I can agree with that.
It still had some potential as a meatshield/counter of sorts to heavy chargelot styles.
Anyway, speaking of what I consider anachronistic nerfs that can be reverted, what do you folks feel about the following?
1. Experiment with a stim research time buff. The nerf was a good move consider the map pool and the styles of the time, I'm not sure it's necessary anymore. Bar timing attacks, it would be mostly IMO a buff to Terran defensive play against things like Blink allins.
2. Revert the cost reduction to Protoss upgrades from +2 onwards. The +1 cost is pretty nice atm, it's a real staple of pressure builds vs Zergs. Considering that this buff went through in an era where Protoss needed a high sentry count relative to today and therefore a high gas expenditure, whereas now that is less the case I don't see a good reason for those costs to remain. All Protoss ground shares upgrades as well, Protoss can chrono upgrades as it is, those are big enough advantages without the costs being what they are. It may make hardcore Protoss turtling on 2 base while getting tech + upgrades a little less efficient and force Protoss to expand slightly more aggressively, giving Terrans a bit more to work with in the midgame.
3. Decrease the MSC sight range. I consider this value to have been created while the MSC was still rooted to the Nexus in beta. Whoever pointed this out, I think you're on the money. Psionic overcharge range correlating with the vision range of something that could originally only be placed ON a nexus is the only explanation I can come up with as to why the vision range is quite so high.
4. Revert the Oracle speed buff. Not really an anachronistic unit value, but one that didn't need changed. I would however make it more responsive and microable, with maybe an acceleration increase, or even looking at some of Lalush's ideas on air unit micro.
You're asking for 3 changes of the type we've never even heard DK -TALK- about: reverting changes he made previously, be it wrong or right. The other one is taken into consideration.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
From what I remember, it was because TvT had become a Hellbat fest. I was in two minds about that patch (as you may or may not know, I generally dislike most, if not all, patches) but it seemed the right way to go as a once cool match-up (TvT) had become just silly. If they want to return the Hellbat to 2 cargo space, rather than 4 that would be fine with me.
Note also, that I was against the WM nerf. But that was because of all the ZvT complaining. A stronger WM and 4 HB per Medivac seems OK to me. Heck, I'd even be on board with looking at stim timings again (as that is one powerful upgrade). But, you would have to consider the effect of all of this on TvZ too (I am not sure if a big stim buff would not be too much).
Unfortunately, generally speaking Blizzard have been very unwilling to roll back any patch.
Realistically speaking I doubt any of these will happen. But, if nerfs to Protoss are to happen. Then, I'd like them to be good and intelligent tweaks (e.g. working with PO; tweaking both MSC vision and TW) rather than massive swings of the nerf hammer. This way Protoss get to still enjoy some of their new found HOTS flexibility while giving some back to Terran too. That way, hopefully, both races are better off in aggregate and Starcraft itself better off as a result.
On February 08 2014 07:01 JIJI_ wrote: David Kim said it was for tvt when he gave the situation report back in July.
It annoys me how Protoss gets MSC because of pvp and Zerg gets stronger spore for ZvZ mutas but for tvt unit is nerfed heavily across the board.
I rly doubt they will ever revert a change once it happens though so it's sort of pointless to talk about oracle speed or the hellbat.
I am not sure why turrets and bunkers were never buffed given the buffs to 'base' defensive. to weaken the early game all-ins.
Bunkers can't be buffed because of TvZ, Missile Turret strenght is not a problem, it is the fact they are expensive to get (you need to invest 325/425 for decent Turret defense) and if you make the wrong call, they cost you the game.
except they can buff bunker repair rate without unsetting TvZ since you won't have 5-6 scvs for 11-11s. The problem is protoss focus fire takes down bunkers too fast.
But you would need quite a ridiculous repair rate to properly hold Voidrays, Immortals or even 12+ stalks. (;
On February 08 2014 07:16 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:12 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:10 SC2Toastie wrote:
On February 08 2014 07:01 TheDwf wrote:
On February 08 2014 06:59 hipo wrote: [quote] Because of TvT
Nope, otherwise they would have played upon the fact Probes have 40 hit points, Drones 41 (+1 with Zerg regen) and SCVs/Marines 45.
Hold that shotgun - Current Hellbat attack allows +1 armor No CS marines that used Stimpack to survive 2 hellbat attacks - That is an important benchmark and happens very often =P?
Nope, this kind of scenario is unlikely.
It's the only benchmark I can possibly think of for the 18 damage that would affect Tvt and wouldn't affect TvZ TvP, like DK promised.....
The 18 damage was chosen so that unupgraded Hellbats kill unupgraded Zerglings in 2 shots.
As always, we’ve been keeping a close eye on the balance of things, and have decided to address the issues concerning Terran and the Hellbat.
Here are our thoughts:
1. Hellbat drops are mainly an issue for TvT.
2. Terran isn't over performing so while nerfing Hellbats, we’d like to simultaneously push a buff to the Banshee.
3. We think seeing less Hellbat play in the early mid game is not a bad thing, as other Terran harass options are a lot more interesting to watch.
4. This change will also address any other lingering concerns we may have with Hellbats outside of TvT when it comes to early mid game.
So overall, we believe the changes we've been testing in the balance test map are solid for Hellbats: Attack damage decreased from 18 +12 vs. light to 18. The Infernal Pre-Igniter upgrade increases attack damage from 18 to 18 +12 vs. light.
Banshee changes on the other hand, we're planning on going ahead with just the cost reduction change only: Cloaking Field research cost decreased from 200/200 to 100/100
Let us know if you have any feedback. We are looking to implement these changes sometime this week.
He clearly states he is nerfing for TvT. Why did he nerf the Hellbat to a level where it'd barely not affect Zerglings? 18 damage +3/4 light would not have changed a thing in the other matchups but would be fine in TvT. Meanwhile, the cloak buff was bullshit already because of how accessible detection became because of the Mine.
That patch was a flat out slap in the face for Terran, worded to make it seem like it improved TvT, while in fact cutting a good strategy out of TvZ/TvP.
To be honest, i didn't like the hellbat one bit. I'm glad it's pretty much out of sight. That there was no compensation for lost strength, I can agree with that.
You miss my point. I'm happy the Hellbat doesn't dominate TvT the way it used too (MAN was I bad vs those xD). BUT - the arguments used (TvT) DO NOT EXPLAIN the magnitute of the nerf.
Oops, indeed. I misread it a bit. Sorry.
@ toasties other post: I meant another post, although the 2 aren't unrelated :'). I edited the one i meant in my original post.
Read them - those changes have already been proposed quite often, to no avail.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
From what I remember, it was because TvT had become a Hellbat fest. I was in two minds about that patch (as you may or may not know, I generally dislike most, if not all, patches) but it seemed the right way to go as a once cool match-up (TvT) had become just silly. If they want to return the Hellbat to 2 cargo space, rather than 4 that would be fine with me.
Note also, that I was against the WM nerf. But that was because of all the ZvT complaining. A stronger WM and 4 HB per Medivac seems OK to me. Heck, I'd even be on board with looking at stim timings again (as that is one powerful upgrade). But, you would have to consider the effect of all of this on TvZ too (I am not sure if a big stim buff would not be too much).
Unfortunately, generally speaking Blizzard have been very unwilling to roll back any patch. Realistically speaking I doubt any of these will happen. But, if nerfs to Protoss are to happen. Then, I'd like them to be good and intelligent tweaks rather than massive swings of the nerf hammer. This way Protoss get to still enjoy some of their new found HOTS flexibility while giving some back to Terran too. That way, hopefully, both races are better off in aggregate and Starcraft itself better off as a result.
Nobody has disagreed with the hellbat nerfs - but the amount they nerfed them. It was not a TvT nerf despite whatever they tell you: it was an accross the board nerf to Terran openings.
WM nerf was 'because TvZ is getting stale', another pretty terrible reason. Balance in TvZ was looking really good with the better player usually winning (Unlike now - see any LR threat). The problem was that the same game over and over and over and over got boring so Mines got nerfed.
Ya I'll admit when they said they were trading the hellbat nerf for the banshee nerf I thought they were just trying to appease people that might have gotten angry. I really hope they were not so clueless as to believe that it would be even remotely an even trade.
Also I feel like it was mostly Zerg and Protoss players complaining about "watching TvT" for the sake of them not having to deal with hellbats - they got their wish I guess. I never thought hellbat drops were that bad in TvT since it was just harass into macro it rarely ever ended the game and banshee opener more or less countered it even without the cloak decrease.
On February 08 2014 07:39 JIJI_ wrote: Ya I'll admit when they said they were trading the hellbat nerf for the banshee nerf I thought they were just trying to appease people that might have gotten angry. I really hope they were not so clueless as to believe that it would be even remotely an even trade.
Also I feel like it was mostly Zerg and Protoss players complaining about "watching TvT" for the sake of them not having to deal with hellbats - they got their wish I guess. I never thought hellbat drops were that bad in TvT since it was just harass into macro it rarely ever ended the game and banshee opener more or less countered it even without the cloak decrease.
The game nearly ALWAYS ended with hellbat drops - seeing games where both Players lost over 100 SCVs and got below the 20s at 10 minutes into the game was not a rare occurence. Hellbats needed fixing in TvT.
HELL - We got as far as people opening with a turret AND a bunker in the mineral line and still losing vs hellbat drops.
WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
From what I remember, it was because TvT had become a Hellbat fest. I was in two minds about that patch (as you may or may not know, I generally dislike most, if not all, patches) but it seemed the right way to go as a once cool match-up (TvT) had become just silly. If they want to return the Hellbat to 2 cargo space, rather than 4 that would be fine with me.
Note also, that I was against the WM nerf. But that was because of all the ZvT complaining. A stronger WM and 4 HB per Medivac seems OK to me. Heck, I'd even be on board with looking at stim timings again (as that is one powerful upgrade). But, you would have to consider the effect of all of this on TvZ too (I am not sure if a big stim buff would not be too much).
Unfortunately, generally speaking Blizzard have been very unwilling to roll back any patch. Realistically speaking I doubt any of these will happen. But, if nerfs to Protoss are to happen. Then, I'd like them to be good and intelligent tweaks rather than massive swings of the nerf hammer. This way Protoss get to still enjoy some of their new found HOTS flexibility while giving some back to Terran too. That way, hopefully, both races are better off in aggregate and Starcraft itself better off as a result.
Nobody has disagreed with the hellbat nerfs - but the amount they nerfed them. It was not a TvT nerf despite whatever they tell you: it was an accross the board nerf to Terran openings.
WM nerf was 'because TvZ is getting stale', another pretty terrible reason. Balance in TvZ was looking really good with the better player usually winning (Unlike now - see any LR threat). The problem was that the same game over and over and over and over got boring so Mines got nerfed.
The weakest justification was the WM nerfs, blizzard wanted more tank play instead of 4M. Then why didn't they nerf mutas so we get more muta ling baneling hydra play?
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
From what I remember, it was because TvT had become a Hellbat fest. I was in two minds about that patch (as you may or may not know, I generally dislike most, if not all, patches) but it seemed the right way to go as a once cool match-up (TvT) had become just silly. If they want to return the Hellbat to 2 cargo space, rather than 4 that would be fine with me.
Note also, that I was against the WM nerf. But that was because of all the ZvT complaining. A stronger WM and 4 HB per Medivac seems OK to me. Heck, I'd even be on board with looking at stim timings again (as that is one powerful upgrade). But, you would have to consider the effect of all of this on TvZ too (I am not sure if a big stim buff would not be too much).
Unfortunately, generally speaking Blizzard have been very unwilling to roll back any patch. Realistically speaking I doubt any of these will happen. But, if nerfs to Protoss are to happen. Then, I'd like them to be good and intelligent tweaks rather than massive swings of the nerf hammer. This way Protoss get to still enjoy some of their new found HOTS flexibility while giving some back to Terran too. That way, hopefully, both races are better off in aggregate and Starcraft itself better off as a result.
Nobody has disagreed with the hellbat nerfs - but the amount they nerfed them. It was not a TvT nerf despite whatever they tell you: it was an accross the board nerf to Terran openings.
WM nerf was 'because TvZ is getting stale', another pretty terrible reason. Balance in TvZ was looking really good with the better player usually winning (Unlike now - see any LR threat). The problem was that the same game over and over and over and over got boring so Mines got nerfed.
I don't agree with that. That patch came after a whole bunch of rather silly TvT games. The unit itself was OK in TvZ and TvP from what I remember. I see no reason why Blizzard would lie. The nerf may have been over-heavy (I can't say for sure). But this is why, along with the WM nerf, I am generally against patching. Patches tend to cause more trouble than they are worth.
I paid 100$ to get early sc2 beta without regrets but i have not bothered buying hots and have completly abandoned sc2 for dota.
Sc2 isnt bad in general but it will never be anything like scbw,and thats coming from someone who only started scbw 1 year before sc2 realease to get ready for sc2. Well the epic TSL helped too to get me hyped for scbw itself ^^.
Not ranting or whining, because the internet has too much of it already,but i think people who still hope that sc2 will become like scbw with patches or another expansion should stop hoping. The hots expansion was nothing like the broodwar expansion.
I only reached c+ in scbw, but i sure as hell am proud of it. =)
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
We know how this ended up. The mines were nerfed in exchange for a negligable Tank buff (Heey, Hellbat <-> Banshee exchange 0.0!?!?) and ended up just being a nerf. Reason: so bio play becomes more interesting.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
From what I remember, it was because TvT had become a Hellbat fest. I was in two minds about that patch (as you may or may not know, I generally dislike most, if not all, patches) but it seemed the right way to go as a once cool match-up (TvT) had become just silly. If they want to return the Hellbat to 2 cargo space, rather than 4 that would be fine with me.
Note also, that I was against the WM nerf. But that was because of all the ZvT complaining. A stronger WM and 4 HB per Medivac seems OK to me. Heck, I'd even be on board with looking at stim timings again (as that is one powerful upgrade). But, you would have to consider the effect of all of this on TvZ too (I am not sure if a big stim buff would not be too much).
Unfortunately, generally speaking Blizzard have been very unwilling to roll back any patch. Realistically speaking I doubt any of these will happen. But, if nerfs to Protoss are to happen. Then, I'd like them to be good and intelligent tweaks rather than massive swings of the nerf hammer. This way Protoss get to still enjoy some of their new found HOTS flexibility while giving some back to Terran too. That way, hopefully, both races are better off in aggregate and Starcraft itself better off as a result.
Nobody has disagreed with the hellbat nerfs - but the amount they nerfed them. It was not a TvT nerf despite whatever they tell you: it was an accross the board nerf to Terran openings.
WM nerf was 'because TvZ is getting stale', another pretty terrible reason. Balance in TvZ was looking really good with the better player usually winning (Unlike now - see any LR threat). The problem was that the same game over and over and over and over got boring so Mines got nerfed.
I don't agree with that. That patch came after a whole bunch of rather silly TvT games. The unit itself was OK in TvZ and TvP from what I remember. I see no reason why Blizzard would lie. The nerf may have been over-heavy (I can't say for sure). But this is why, along with the WM nerf, I am generally against over patching. They tend to cause more trouble than they are worth.
I don't understand what you are getting at with the first part of your post - isn't that what I wrote? They either lied and wanted to change TvZ/TvP but didn't want to say so, or they are really stupid...
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
From what I remember, it was because TvT had become a Hellbat fest. I was in two minds about that patch (as you may or may not know, I generally dislike most, if not all, patches) but it seemed the right way to go as a once cool match-up (TvT) had become just silly. If they want to return the Hellbat to 2 cargo space, rather than 4 that would be fine with me.
Note also, that I was against the WM nerf. But that was because of all the ZvT complaining. A stronger WM and 4 HB per Medivac seems OK to me. Heck, I'd even be on board with looking at stim timings again (as that is one powerful upgrade). But, you would have to consider the effect of all of this on TvZ too (I am not sure if a big stim buff would not be too much).
Unfortunately, generally speaking Blizzard have been very unwilling to roll back any patch. Realistically speaking I doubt any of these will happen. But, if nerfs to Protoss are to happen. Then, I'd like them to be good and intelligent tweaks rather than massive swings of the nerf hammer. This way Protoss get to still enjoy some of their new found HOTS flexibility while giving some back to Terran too. That way, hopefully, both races are better off in aggregate and Starcraft itself better off as a result.
Nobody has disagreed with the hellbat nerfs - but the amount they nerfed them. It was not a TvT nerf despite whatever they tell you: it was an accross the board nerf to Terran openings.
WM nerf was 'because TvZ is getting stale', another pretty terrible reason. Balance in TvZ was looking really good with the better player usually winning (Unlike now - see any LR threat). The problem was that the same game over and over and over and over got boring so Mines got nerfed.
I don't agree with that. That patch came after a whole bunch of rather silly TvT games. The unit itself was OK in TvZ and TvP from what I remember. I see no reason why Blizzard would lie. The nerf may have been over-heavy (I can't say for sure). But this is why, along with the WM nerf, I am generally against over patching. They tend to cause more trouble than they are worth.
I don't understand what you are getting at with the first part of your post - isn't that what I wrote? They either lied and wanted to change TvZ/TvP but didn't want to say so, or they are really stupid...
Oh, maybe we misunderstood each other. I'd say they may have made a mistake (but I'm unsure). I don't believe they were being duplicitous, nor do I think they were being stupid. For me, these are some of the dangers of patching. You can fuck up.
Thats why I think blizz never really truly is honest with us.
Part of the banshee buff to me was they really just wanted to kill hellbat drops 100% (banshee opener was 1 of the counters - Polt banshee build that he used during hots). I mean surely they don't think the banshee buff for hellbat nerf was anywhere near an even trade. Also bunker in mineral line was never a good counter to hellbat drops imo - better to use banshee or turret + WM / vikings or defensive hellbats of your own.
Either way I think a better nerf would be to remove medivac healing (a change tons of people suggested) - big part is that it would increase their lifespan by a crazy amount against marines early game before stim. This would not have killed the build completely but make it a bit weaker and would have also made the mid-game marauder/hellbat timings blizz was worried about weaker as well without killing them completely. But for some reason blizz wanted to kill the strats 100%.
On February 08 2014 07:47 Wombat_NI wrote: I wish other races got nerfs solely to make them more interesting.
Why would you wish nerfs into the game? The more fun stuff gets nerfed, the more stale the game gets... I don't like nerfs, I prefer reworks and redesigns...
On February 08 2014 07:48 JIJI_ wrote: Thats why I think blizz never really truly is honest with us.
Part of the banshee buff to me was they really just wanted to kill hellbat drops 100% (banshee opener was 1 of the counters - Polt banshee build that he used during hots). I mean surely they don't think the banshee buff for hellbat nerf was anywhere near an even trade. Also bunker in mineral line was never a good counter to hellbat drops imo - better to use banshee or turret + WM / vikings or defensive hellbats of your own.
Either way I think a better nerf would be to remove medivac healing (a change tons of people suggested) - big part is that it would increase their lifespan by a crazy amount against marines early game before stim. This would not have killed the build completely but make it a bit weaker and would have also made the mid-game marauder/hellbat timings blizz was worried about weaker as well without killing them completely. But for some reason blizz wanted to kill the strats 100%.
They are not truly honest OR they do not understand the game. Sadly, every bit of information we get about their plans, the more I fear it is the second.
There were many options: Damage to 18 +3/4 vs Light, Healing nerf, ....
On February 08 2014 07:47 Wombat_NI wrote: I wish other races got nerfs solely to make them more interesting.
Why would you wish nerfs into the game? The more fun stuff gets nerfed, the more stale the game gets... I don't like nerfs, I prefer reworks and redesigns...
I was being facetious. Zergs can run around and get to huge muta flocks and that's apparently not problematic, we know the issues with TvP atm. Meanwhile Biomine was apparently monotonous so gets a bit of a nerf to encourage more tank play, which at least in conjunction with bio is pretty much non-existent given to how strong mutas currently are.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
From what I remember, it was because TvT had become a Hellbat fest. I was in two minds about that patch (as you may or may not know, I generally dislike most, if not all, patches) but it seemed the right way to go as a once cool match-up (TvT) had become just silly. If they want to return the Hellbat to 2 cargo space, rather than 4 that would be fine with me.
Note also, that I was against the WM nerf. But that was because of all the ZvT complaining. A stronger WM and 4 HB per Medivac seems OK to me. Heck, I'd even be on board with looking at stim timings again (as that is one powerful upgrade). But, you would have to consider the effect of all of this on TvZ too (I am not sure if a big stim buff would not be too much).
Unfortunately, generally speaking Blizzard have been very unwilling to roll back any patch. Realistically speaking I doubt any of these will happen. But, if nerfs to Protoss are to happen. Then, I'd like them to be good and intelligent tweaks rather than massive swings of the nerf hammer. This way Protoss get to still enjoy some of their new found HOTS flexibility while giving some back to Terran too. That way, hopefully, both races are better off in aggregate and Starcraft itself better off as a result.
Nobody has disagreed with the hellbat nerfs - but the amount they nerfed them. It was not a TvT nerf despite whatever they tell you: it was an accross the board nerf to Terran openings.
WM nerf was 'because TvZ is getting stale', another pretty terrible reason. Balance in TvZ was looking really good with the better player usually winning (Unlike now - see any LR threat). The problem was that the same game over and over and over and over got boring so Mines got nerfed.
I don't agree with that. That patch came after a whole bunch of rather silly TvT games. The unit itself was OK in TvZ and TvP from what I remember. I see no reason why Blizzard would lie. The nerf may have been over-heavy (I can't say for sure). But this is why, along with the WM nerf, I am generally against over patching. They tend to cause more trouble than they are worth.
I don't understand what you are getting at with the first part of your post - isn't that what I wrote? They either lied and wanted to change TvZ/TvP but didn't want to say so, or they are really stupid...
Oh, maybe we misunderstood each other. I'd say they may have made a mistake (but I'm unsure). I don't believe they were being duplicitous, nor do I think they were being stupid. For me, these are some of the dangers of patching. You can fuck up.
I think we are arguing about different things, we don't disagree with each other, but we don't write the statements that fit to each other... :-)?
On February 08 2014 07:47 Wombat_NI wrote: I wish other races got nerfs solely to make them more interesting.
Why would you wish nerfs into the game? The more fun stuff gets nerfed, the more stale the game gets... I don't like nerfs, I prefer reworks and redesigns...
I was being facetious. Zergs can run around and get to huge muta flocks and that's apparently not problematic, we know the issues with TvP atm. Meanwhile Biomine was apparently monotonous so gets a bit of a nerf to encourage more tank play, which at least in conjunction with bio is pretty much non-existent given to how strong mutas currently are.
Ye, well, what is there to do about it. Just watch how the RO16 of all WCSes consists of Toss, Zerg, Maru, Taeja, Bomber and maybe 2/3 other Terrans that rape foreigners.. :p Which sadly, is quite likely xD
Tho to be fair, what you wrote is an ongoing pattern in SC2 patching...
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Win rates were really close to 50/50 before the nerf, and now I think that muta/ling vs bio/mine/thor favours zerg. I do feel the mine was probably too good pre nerf, but the tank "buff" was in no way adequate compensation.
I really miss that from BW, there was tons of OP shit, but it was ok since everyone had it. As soon as something sticks out in SC2 it gets mauled with the nerfhammer and some other unit is given a speed increase for no apparent reason.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
From what I remember, it was because TvT had become a Hellbat fest. I was in two minds about that patch (as you may or may not know, I generally dislike most, if not all, patches) but it seemed the right way to go as a once cool match-up (TvT) had become just silly. If they want to return the Hellbat to 2 cargo space, rather than 4 that would be fine with me.
Note also, that I was against the WM nerf. But that was because of all the ZvT complaining. A stronger WM and 4 HB per Medivac seems OK to me. Heck, I'd even be on board with looking at stim timings again (as that is one powerful upgrade). But, you would have to consider the effect of all of this on TvZ too (I am not sure if a big stim buff would not be too much).
Unfortunately, generally speaking Blizzard have been very unwilling to roll back any patch. Realistically speaking I doubt any of these will happen. But, if nerfs to Protoss are to happen. Then, I'd like them to be good and intelligent tweaks rather than massive swings of the nerf hammer. This way Protoss get to still enjoy some of their new found HOTS flexibility while giving some back to Terran too. That way, hopefully, both races are better off in aggregate and Starcraft itself better off as a result.
Nobody has disagreed with the hellbat nerfs - but the amount they nerfed them. It was not a TvT nerf despite whatever they tell you: it was an accross the board nerf to Terran openings.
WM nerf was 'because TvZ is getting stale', another pretty terrible reason. Balance in TvZ was looking really good with the better player usually winning (Unlike now - see any LR threat). The problem was that the same game over and over and over and over got boring so Mines got nerfed.
I don't agree with that. That patch came after a whole bunch of rather silly TvT games. The unit itself was OK in TvZ and TvP from what I remember. I see no reason why Blizzard would lie. The nerf may have been over-heavy (I can't say for sure). But this is why, along with the WM nerf, I am generally against patching. Patches tend to cause more trouble than they are worth.
Bold position to hold (against patching) given the current state of the game.
On smaller maps, where the distance between T and Z is not very large like Habitation Station, tanks are used more and more. But tanks will never be used on huge maps like Frost, cause it equals to: push and win or die.
That is why T is strugling using MMMM on bigger maps. Tanks are not viable, and WMs are too weak.
Blizzard must have known it, but still thought tank buff for WM nerf is the equal trade. However, most of the community were pretty sure it was Not.
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Win rates were really close to 50/50 before the nerf, and now I think that muta/ling vs bio/mine/thor favours zerg. I do feel the mine was probably too good pre nerf, but the tank "buff" was in no way adequate compensation.
I really miss that from BW, there was tons of OP shit, but it was ok since everyone had it. As soon as something sticks out in SC2 it gets mauled with the nerfhammer and some other unit is given a speed increase for no apparent reason.
Win rates were not 50/50 pre-nerf, they were grossly in T's favor, Soulkey was the only Zerg who could take games off Terran, and he had to vastly outplay his opponent to do so. Imbalanced TvZ was the primary reason we only got 2 Z's in '13 WCS Global Finals. WM nerf was not premature; in fact it was the complete opposite -- it should have been implemented way before it was, and part of the reason it took so long was because Zergs don't whine near as much, and when they do they are chastised and suppressed far more readily than the other races, I mean compare the amount of whine from Z during '13 WCS Global Finals versus what we get from Terrans now, the ratio is like 1:∞.
No really, what you are seeing now is Zerg play that was built around countering the WM of old, and was seeing some success in an era where the mine is also nerfed.
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Win rates were really close to 50/50 before the nerf, and now I think that muta/ling vs bio/mine/thor favours zerg. I do feel the mine was probably too good pre nerf, but the tank "buff" was in no way adequate compensation.
I really miss that from BW, there was tons of OP shit, but it was ok since everyone had it. As soon as something sticks out in SC2 it gets mauled with the nerfhammer and some other unit is given a speed increase for no apparent reason.
Win rates were not 50/50 pre-nerf, they were grossly in T's favor, Soulkey was the only Zerg who could take games off Terran, and he had to vastly outplay his opponent to do so. Imbalanced TvZ was the primary reason we only got 2 Z's in '13 WCS Global Finals. WM nerf was not premature; in fact it was the complete opposite -- it should have been implemented way before it was, and part of the reason it took so long was because Zergs don't whine near as much, and when they do they are chastised and suppressed far more readily than the other races, I mean compare the amount of whine from Z during '13 WCS Global Finals versus what we get from Terrans now, the ratio is like 1:∞.
No. '113 WCS Global Finals include WCS points from 2 seasons, in which 2 of the seasons Terran was probably slightly stronger, in the third, however, Zerg was pretty much fine in TvZ. The game was really back and forth and the better player won. AND THEN the mine patch came.
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Win rates were really close to 50/50 before the nerf, and now I think that muta/ling vs bio/mine/thor favours zerg. I do feel the mine was probably too good pre nerf, but the tank "buff" was in no way adequate compensation.
I really miss that from BW, there was tons of OP shit, but it was ok since everyone had it. As soon as something sticks out in SC2 it gets mauled with the nerfhammer and some other unit is given a speed increase for no apparent reason.
Win rates were not 50/50 pre-nerf, they were grossly in T's favor, Soulkey was the only Zerg who could take games off Terran, and he had to vastly outplay his opponent to do so. Imbalanced TvZ was the primary reason we only got 2 Z's in '13 WCS Global Finals. WM nerf was not premature; in fact it was the complete opposite -- it should have been implemented way before it was, and part of the reason it took so long was because Zergs don't whine near as much, and when they do they are chastised and suppressed far more readily than the other races, I mean compare the amount of whine from Z during '13 WCS Global Finals versus what we get from Terrans now, the ratio is like 1:∞.
No. '113 WCS Global Finals include WCS points from 2 seasons, in which 2 of the seasons Terran was probably slightly stronger, in the third, however, Zerg was pretty much fine in TvZ. The game was really back and forth and the better player won. AND THEN the mine patch came.
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Win rates were really close to 50/50 before the nerf, and now I think that muta/ling vs bio/mine/thor favours zerg. I do feel the mine was probably too good pre nerf, but the tank "buff" was in no way adequate compensation.
I really miss that from BW, there was tons of OP shit, but it was ok since everyone had it. As soon as something sticks out in SC2 it gets mauled with the nerfhammer and some other unit is given a speed increase for no apparent reason.
Win rates were not 50/50 pre-nerf, they were grossly in T's favor, Soulkey was the only Zerg who could take games off Terran, and he had to vastly outplay his opponent to do so. Imbalanced TvZ was the primary reason we only got 2 Z's in '13 WCS Global Finals. WM nerf was not premature; in fact it was the complete opposite -- it should have been implemented way before it was, and part of the reason it took so long was because Zergs don't whine near as much, and when they do they are chastised and suppressed far more readily than the other races, I mean compare the amount of whine from Z during '13 WCS Global Finals versus what we get from Terrans now, the ratio is like 1:∞.
There is always a period of time where players have to figure out new mechanics. When SC2 was released, and for quite a while after that, Zerg players still weren't using creep to it's maximum. Now, it would be unheard of top Zergs that don't cover most of their side of the map with creep in a TvZ.
Ex: I saw this on Idra's retirement thread. Note that Idra beats Mvp, despite not utilizing creep the way top zergs currently do.
As to your point on TvZ before widow-mine was nerfed, the WR was beginning to shift back towards 50/50 gradually as Zergs began to figure out the way to beat widow-mines. Reducing damage by splitting more often and using the friendlyfire against the Terrans themselves.
Now 4M is largely considered impotent. Why? Nerf + Zergs figuring it out = compounded nerf.
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Win rates were really close to 50/50 before the nerf, and now I think that muta/ling vs bio/mine/thor favours zerg. I do feel the mine was probably too good pre nerf, but the tank "buff" was in no way adequate compensation.
I really miss that from BW, there was tons of OP shit, but it was ok since everyone had it. As soon as something sticks out in SC2 it gets mauled with the nerfhammer and some other unit is given a speed increase for no apparent reason.
Win rates were not 50/50 pre-nerf, they were grossly in T's favor, Soulkey was the only Zerg who could take games off Terran, and he had to vastly outplay his opponent to do so. Imbalanced TvZ was the primary reason we only got 2 Z's in '13 WCS Global Finals. WM nerf was not premature; in fact it was the complete opposite -- it should have been implemented way before it was, and part of the reason it took so long was because Zergs don't whine near as much, and when they do they are chastised and suppressed far more readily than the other races, I mean compare the amount of whine from Z during '13 WCS Global Finals versus what we get from Terrans now, the ratio is like 1:∞.
There was the overload speed buff that solved the WM problem and TvZ was fairly balance if not slightly Zerg favor because of mass mutas. The terrans were overrepresented in WCS because of MMAA, Mvp, Polt, Alive were farming WCS points ez mode in non-Korea regions.
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Win rates were really close to 50/50 before the nerf, and now I think that muta/ling vs bio/mine/thor favours zerg. I do feel the mine was probably too good pre nerf, but the tank "buff" was in no way adequate compensation.
I really miss that from BW, there was tons of OP shit, but it was ok since everyone had it. As soon as something sticks out in SC2 it gets mauled with the nerfhammer and some other unit is given a speed increase for no apparent reason.
Win rates were not 50/50 pre-nerf, they were grossly in T's favor, Soulkey was the only Zerg who could take games off Terran, and he had to vastly outplay his opponent to do so. Imbalanced TvZ was the primary reason we only got 2 Z's in '13 WCS Global Finals. WM nerf was not premature; in fact it was the complete opposite -- it should have been implemented way before it was, and part of the reason it took so long was because Zergs don't whine near as much, and when they do they are chastised and suppressed far more readily than the other races, I mean compare the amount of whine from Z during '13 WCS Global Finals versus what we get from Terrans now, the ratio is like 1:∞.
There was the overload speed buff that solved the WM problem and TvZ was fairly balance if not slightly Zerg favor because of mass mutas. The terrans were overrepresented in WCS because of MMAA, Mvp, Polt, Alive were farming WCS points ez mode in non-Korea regions.
I wouldn't say it was Z favoured after the overseer speed buff. But it definitely helped a lot and wr was shifting back to balance at the least.
The Overlord speed buff was useful because it allowed mutas to roam about without having to wait for Overseers to catch up and actually fulfill their designated role without having to pussyfoot around mines.
I'm getting annoyed at Blizzard simply not giving the game enough time to develop. Compared to BW it's much easier to publicize balance whining and forums are much more prevalent. So they feel like they have to do something.
Oftentimes they nerf something that people have figured out how to deal with or that the change in maps has made not viable and it ends up skewing balance.
Just let the game sit for like a whole year without patching ANYTHING please. Win rates are close enough to 50 that we can coast on this for a while. Especially that the MsC and Ghost changes have gone through as of this week.
On February 08 2014 08:33 DinoMight wrote: I'm getting annoyed at Blizzard simply not giving the game enough time to develop. Compared to BW it's much easier to publicize balance whining and forums are much more prevalent. So they feel like they have to do something.
Oftentimes they nerf something that people have figured out how to deal with or that the change in maps has made not viable and it ends up skewing balance.
Just let the game sit for like a whole year without patching ANYTHING please. Win rates are close enough to 50 that we can coast on this for a while. Especially that the MsC and Ghost changes have gone through as of this week.
To be honest, WR by itself isn't the best metric for balance. In combination with race representation, WR becomes more robust as an indicator of balance.
Having said this, I agree that we need to let the MsC and Ghost changes play out a bit. I know a lot of people, including pros, are saying it's not enough in TvP. But they are quite biased and not thinking straight. Long-term speaking; gradual and and measured changes are the best in my humble opinion.
On February 08 2014 08:33 DinoMight wrote: I'm getting annoyed at Blizzard simply not giving the game enough time to develop. Compared to BW it's much easier to publicize balance whining and forums are much more prevalent. So they feel like they have to do something.
Oftentimes they nerf something that people have figured out how to deal with or that the change in maps has made not viable and it ends up skewing balance.
Just let the game sit for like a whole year without patching ANYTHING please. Win rates are close enough to 50 that we can coast on this for a while. Especially that the MsC and Ghost changes have gone through as of this week.
No thanks, it seems you're forgetting the superior BW game design which entailed way more entertaining games than we get in SC2. SC2 gets real stale real fast, and, at least for the time being (until LotV?), change is better than no change.
On February 08 2014 03:07 Ghanburighan wrote: Whitewing and Plansix, the two people I'd like to have balancing the game... I would love getting every fact and complaint responded to with patronising and trolling.
Edit: And IdrA, when still a top foreigner, predicted a number of imbalances, including ghosts getting nerfed almost a year before they were, alongside obvious ones like infestors getting nerfed. So, yes, being good at the game does give you good knowledge of the game. Actually arguing his point with facts and examples makes it much better, of course.
In early WOL while zergs were hugely underpresented and Dustin Browder stated that TvZ win/rates were close to 50-50, it was clear for everyone who ignored the useless win/rate statistics (that always goes towards 50/50 regardless of balance) and either looked at more relevant numbers or simply analyzed games, that it was heavily T favored. Blizzad, however, back then acted a bit quicker than they do today and nerfed Reapers and Siege tanks shortly after the patch. Idra, however, kept saying that it still was T favored and argued that it was more imbalanced (prepatch) than most people realized.
He was !@#$%^&* right, According to statistics by Aliguac, there was a terran invovled in all non-mirror matchups 70-77% of all games in early WOL compared to 50-55% for zerg --> That indicates that the matchup was heavily T favored.
How does that look today? Protoss = 72% and terran = 56% --> T very underpowered.
While some of the suggestions Dwf presents might not be neccasary (tactical Nuke), I really think its extremely unlikely that the combo of these suggestions will make the game T favored. I would even argue that the combo of these suggestions are much less drastic than the fungal growth buff that Blizzards gave Zerg in spring 2011. And back then FYI terran representation was around 68%, zerg representation around 65%. Aliguac W/R were slightly T favored (similar to how PvT w/r today are slightly toss favored).
So overall, Z wasn't underperforming as badly as T is today, and even later on (after Z representation equalized T representation), Zerg got another buff --> Queen range increased from 3 to 5, which arguably also was a more significant than the combo of Dwf's suggestions.
So IMO, either a big change is needed (like a big Hellion buff to buff mech) or it could be a combo of small suggestions, such as what Dwf presents.
I think the change that I would like to see the most is a different way to access balance. With WR we either have a sample size problem or when we don't then it is too insensitive to balance change (better players of the worse race play worse players of the better race)
I think using mirror MU statistics would be a good approach.
Well we don't really have sample size probelms with W/R's by using Aliguac's stats. There are enough data there + you can clearly see general trends across the periods. W/R's though are just not very important to look at, unless you see it together with the distribution of players. For instance if the only terran players that are good enuogh to play comepetitively (and thus be included on Aliguac's stats), then they will naturally have a good win/rates (regardless of balance) if they are facing a top 200 protoss player.
So we can't simpy look at win/rates isolated, Doing that is extremely deceiving and I believe its why we are in such a situation as today where David Kim has waited so ridicilously long by buffing terran. Had David Kim had a better understanding on how to interpret statistics, he would have buffed terran a long time ago, and the buffs would have been more significant.
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Win rates were really close to 50/50 before the nerf, and now I think that muta/ling vs bio/mine/thor favours zerg. I do feel the mine was probably too good pre nerf, but the tank "buff" was in no way adequate compensation.
I really miss that from BW, there was tons of OP shit, but it was ok since everyone had it. As soon as something sticks out in SC2 it gets mauled with the nerfhammer and some other unit is given a speed increase for no apparent reason.
Win rates were not 50/50 pre-nerf, they were grossly in T's favor, Soulkey was the only Zerg who could take games off Terran, and he had to vastly outplay his opponent to do so. Imbalanced TvZ was the primary reason we only got 2 Z's in '13 WCS Global Finals. WM nerf was not premature; in fact it was the complete opposite -- it should have been implemented way before it was, and part of the reason it took so long was because Zergs don't whine near as much, and when they do they are chastised and suppressed far more readily than the other races, I mean compare the amount of whine from Z during '13 WCS Global Finals versus what we get from Terrans now, the ratio is like 1:∞.
No. '113 WCS Global Finals include WCS points from 2 seasons, in which 2 of the seasons Terran was probably slightly stronger, in the third, however, Zerg was pretty much fine in TvZ. The game was really back and forth and the better player won. AND THEN the mine patch came.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
From what I remember, it was because TvT had become a Hellbat fest. I was in two minds about that patch (as you may or may not know, I generally dislike most, if not all, patches) but it seemed the right way to go as a once cool match-up (TvT) had become just silly. If they want to return the Hellbat to 2 cargo space, rather than 4 that would be fine with me.
Note also, that I was against the WM nerf. But that was because of all the ZvT complaining. A stronger WM and 4 HB per Medivac seems OK to me. Heck, I'd even be on board with looking at stim timings again (as that is one powerful upgrade). But, you would have to consider the effect of all of this on TvZ too (I am not sure if a big stim buff would not be too much).
Unfortunately, generally speaking Blizzard have been very unwilling to roll back any patch. Realistically speaking I doubt any of these will happen. But, if nerfs to Protoss are to happen. Then, I'd like them to be good and intelligent tweaks rather than massive swings of the nerf hammer. This way Protoss get to still enjoy some of their new found HOTS flexibility while giving some back to Terran too. That way, hopefully, both races are better off in aggregate and Starcraft itself better off as a result.
Nobody has disagreed with the hellbat nerfs - but the amount they nerfed them. It was not a TvT nerf despite whatever they tell you: it was an accross the board nerf to Terran openings.
WM nerf was 'because TvZ is getting stale', another pretty terrible reason. Balance in TvZ was looking really good with the better player usually winning (Unlike now - see any LR threat). The problem was that the same game over and over and over and over got boring so Mines got nerfed.
I don't agree with that. That patch came after a whole bunch of rather silly TvT games. The unit itself was OK in TvZ and TvP from what I remember. I see no reason why Blizzard would lie. The nerf may have been over-heavy (I can't say for sure). But this is why, along with the WM nerf, I am generally against patching. Patches tend to cause more trouble than they are worth.
Bold position to hold (against patching) given the current state of the game.
My preferred approach to Blizzard's balancing is an adaptation of the Civil Service's 4 stage strategy to foreign affairs crisis from Yes, Prime Minister. A race appeals to help from Blizzard in a time of crisis, this is what they get.
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Win rates were really close to 50/50 before the nerf, and now I think that muta/ling vs bio/mine/thor favours zerg. I do feel the mine was probably too good pre nerf, but the tank "buff" was in no way adequate compensation.
I really miss that from BW, there was tons of OP shit, but it was ok since everyone had it. As soon as something sticks out in SC2 it gets mauled with the nerfhammer and some other unit is given a speed increase for no apparent reason.
Win rates were not 50/50 pre-nerf, they were grossly in T's favor, Soulkey was the only Zerg who could take games off Terran, and he had to vastly outplay his opponent to do so. Imbalanced TvZ was the primary reason we only got 2 Z's in '13 WCS Global Finals. WM nerf was not premature; in fact it was the complete opposite -- it should have been implemented way before it was, and part of the reason it took so long was because Zergs don't whine near as much, and when they do they are chastised and suppressed far more readily than the other races, I mean compare the amount of whine from Z during '13 WCS Global Finals versus what we get from Terrans now, the ratio is like 1:∞.
No. '113 WCS Global Finals include WCS points from 2 seasons, in which 2 of the seasons Terran was probably slightly stronger, in the third, however, Zerg was pretty much fine in TvZ. The game was really back and forth and the better player won. AND THEN the mine patch came.
Keep telling yourself that.
That is indeed a very mature way to argue!
Maybe if there was an argument to be had (there wasn't).
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Win rates were really close to 50/50 before the nerf, and now I think that muta/ling vs bio/mine/thor favours zerg. I do feel the mine was probably too good pre nerf, but the tank "buff" was in no way adequate compensation.
I really miss that from BW, there was tons of OP shit, but it was ok since everyone had it. As soon as something sticks out in SC2 it gets mauled with the nerfhammer and some other unit is given a speed increase for no apparent reason.
Win rates were not 50/50 pre-nerf, they were grossly in T's favor, Soulkey was the only Zerg who could take games off Terran, and he had to vastly outplay his opponent to do so. Imbalanced TvZ was the primary reason we only got 2 Z's in '13 WCS Global Finals. WM nerf was not premature; in fact it was the complete opposite -- it should have been implemented way before it was, and part of the reason it took so long was because Zergs don't whine near as much, and when they do they are chastised and suppressed far more readily than the other races, I mean compare the amount of whine from Z during '13 WCS Global Finals versus what we get from Terrans now, the ratio is like 1:∞.
No. '113 WCS Global Finals include WCS points from 2 seasons, in which 2 of the seasons Terran was probably slightly stronger, in the third, however, Zerg was pretty much fine in TvZ. The game was really back and forth and the better player won. AND THEN the mine patch came.
Keep telling yourself that.
That is indeed a very mature way to argue!
Maybe if there was an argument to be had (there wasn't).
What so Zergs weren't starting to figure out how to mitigate the widowmine, weren't starting to do better and the patch wasn't at all premature or potentially damaging long-term?
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
From what I remember, it was because TvT had become a Hellbat fest. I was in two minds about that patch (as you may or may not know, I generally dislike most, if not all, patches) but it seemed the right way to go as a once cool match-up (TvT) had become just silly. If they want to return the Hellbat to 2 cargo space, rather than 4 that would be fine with me.
Note also, that I was against the WM nerf. But that was because of all the ZvT complaining. A stronger WM and 4 HB per Medivac seems OK to me. Heck, I'd even be on board with looking at stim timings again (as that is one powerful upgrade). But, you would have to consider the effect of all of this on TvZ too (I am not sure if a big stim buff would not be too much).
Unfortunately, generally speaking Blizzard have been very unwilling to roll back any patch. Realistically speaking I doubt any of these will happen. But, if nerfs to Protoss are to happen. Then, I'd like them to be good and intelligent tweaks rather than massive swings of the nerf hammer. This way Protoss get to still enjoy some of their new found HOTS flexibility while giving some back to Terran too. That way, hopefully, both races are better off in aggregate and Starcraft itself better off as a result.
Nobody has disagreed with the hellbat nerfs - but the amount they nerfed them. It was not a TvT nerf despite whatever they tell you: it was an accross the board nerf to Terran openings.
WM nerf was 'because TvZ is getting stale', another pretty terrible reason. Balance in TvZ was looking really good with the better player usually winning (Unlike now - see any LR threat). The problem was that the same game over and over and over and over got boring so Mines got nerfed.
I don't agree with that. That patch came after a whole bunch of rather silly TvT games. The unit itself was OK in TvZ and TvP from what I remember. I see no reason why Blizzard would lie. The nerf may have been over-heavy (I can't say for sure). But this is why, along with the WM nerf, I am generally against patching. Patches tend to cause more trouble than they are worth.
Bold position to hold (against patching) given the current state of the game.
My preferred approach to Blizzard's balancing is an adaptation of the UK's 4 stage strategy to Foreign Policy from Yes, Prime Minister.
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Win rates were really close to 50/50 before the nerf, and now I think that muta/ling vs bio/mine/thor favours zerg. I do feel the mine was probably too good pre nerf, but the tank "buff" was in no way adequate compensation.
I really miss that from BW, there was tons of OP shit, but it was ok since everyone had it. As soon as something sticks out in SC2 it gets mauled with the nerfhammer and some other unit is given a speed increase for no apparent reason.
Win rates were not 50/50 pre-nerf, they were grossly in T's favor, Soulkey was the only Zerg who could take games off Terran, and he had to vastly outplay his opponent to do so. Imbalanced TvZ was the primary reason we only got 2 Z's in '13 WCS Global Finals. WM nerf was not premature; in fact it was the complete opposite -- it should have been implemented way before it was, and part of the reason it took so long was because Zergs don't whine near as much, and when they do they are chastised and suppressed far more readily than the other races, I mean compare the amount of whine from Z during '13 WCS Global Finals versus what we get from Terrans now, the ratio is like 1:∞.
No. '113 WCS Global Finals include WCS points from 2 seasons, in which 2 of the seasons Terran was probably slightly stronger, in the third, however, Zerg was pretty much fine in TvZ. The game was really back and forth and the better player won. AND THEN the mine patch came.
Keep telling yourself that.
That is indeed a very mature way to argue!
Maybe if there was an argument to be had (there wasn't).
What so Zergs weren't starting to figure out how to mitigate the widowmine, weren't starting to do better and the patch wasn't at all premature or potentially damaging long-term?
He's just cherry picking; ignoring posts that provide arguments and then claiming there is no argument to be had. Classic troll.
On February 08 2014 08:52 Wombat_NI wrote: A fine clip nonetheless
Yes, but doing nothing during the era of blatantly lopsided results - at least gradual and measured changes are to be expected. Blizzard has done exactly that, and I am very happy with it. I just don't agree with aZealot's use of the clip in in the context of the thread.
On February 08 2014 05:39 Plansix wrote: If you nerf blink stalker openings and oracle opens to much, you just end up with turtle toss, which no one wants. If Terran needs more options, make that possible through scouting or other routes. Nerfing effective builds is not the way to go. Buffing underused strats is better.
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
From what I remember, it was because TvT had become a Hellbat fest. I was in two minds about that patch (as you may or may not know, I generally dislike most, if not all, patches) but it seemed the right way to go as a once cool match-up (TvT) had become just silly. If they want to return the Hellbat to 2 cargo space, rather than 4 that would be fine with me.
Note also, that I was against the WM nerf. But that was because of all the ZvT complaining. A stronger WM and 4 HB per Medivac seems OK to me. Heck, I'd even be on board with looking at stim timings again (as that is one powerful upgrade). But, you would have to consider the effect of all of this on TvZ too (I am not sure if a big stim buff would not be too much).
Unfortunately, generally speaking Blizzard have been very unwilling to roll back any patch. Realistically speaking I doubt any of these will happen. But, if nerfs to Protoss are to happen. Then, I'd like them to be good and intelligent tweaks rather than massive swings of the nerf hammer. This way Protoss get to still enjoy some of their new found HOTS flexibility while giving some back to Terran too. That way, hopefully, both races are better off in aggregate and Starcraft itself better off as a result.
Nobody has disagreed with the hellbat nerfs - but the amount they nerfed them. It was not a TvT nerf despite whatever they tell you: it was an accross the board nerf to Terran openings.
WM nerf was 'because TvZ is getting stale', another pretty terrible reason. Balance in TvZ was looking really good with the better player usually winning (Unlike now - see any LR threat). The problem was that the same game over and over and over and over got boring so Mines got nerfed.
I don't agree with that. That patch came after a whole bunch of rather silly TvT games. The unit itself was OK in TvZ and TvP from what I remember. I see no reason why Blizzard would lie. The nerf may have been over-heavy (I can't say for sure). But this is why, along with the WM nerf, I am generally against patching. Patches tend to cause more trouble than they are worth.
Bold position to hold (against patching) given the current state of the game.
My preferred approach to Blizzard's balancing is an adaptation of the UK's 4 stage strategy to Foreign Policy from Yes, Prime Minister.
Partially facetious? God I hope completely facetious. The skit appears to poke fun at the ineptitude of the UK foreign ministry.
Hahaha, it is wholly tongue in cheek from me and having a laugh! :D
And yeah, mate. There are times when you do need to patch. I accept that. (Generally, however, it's difficult to know when and what - no-one knows the totality of the game.) But, right now for example, I don't like the constriction in Terran play in TvP (the numbers are not the point). So, I think Blizzard should be tweaking Protoss by looking at PO, MSC vision and the Time Warp.
Btw, if I remember right, you used to be a lot more in favour of patches and Blizzard intervention, no? (Or have I got that wrong?) You now seem to be in favour of a slow and incremental approach. What changed your mind?
On February 08 2014 06:01 ffadicted wrote: [quote]
You also don't want a game with too many amazing early game/all-in possibilities. Blink is too strong right now, it needs to be looked at.
No, thanks. Blink research was already nerfed by about 70 seconds (iirc) in HOTS. Reduce the vision of the MSC to 11 (as with all other flyers). That will help with countering blink play. Make TW an upgrade at Core. That will help with blink all-ins.
Continue tweaking PO (by looking at range and casting range).
But, don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play. The game is worse as a result.
Edit/ Sorry, 30 seconds, I think. I'll have to check that.
Don't nerf an option that allows for pressure and good active play? Then why were hellbats nerfed?
From what I remember, it was because TvT had become a Hellbat fest. I was in two minds about that patch (as you may or may not know, I generally dislike most, if not all, patches) but it seemed the right way to go as a once cool match-up (TvT) had become just silly. If they want to return the Hellbat to 2 cargo space, rather than 4 that would be fine with me.
Note also, that I was against the WM nerf. But that was because of all the ZvT complaining. A stronger WM and 4 HB per Medivac seems OK to me. Heck, I'd even be on board with looking at stim timings again (as that is one powerful upgrade). But, you would have to consider the effect of all of this on TvZ too (I am not sure if a big stim buff would not be too much).
Unfortunately, generally speaking Blizzard have been very unwilling to roll back any patch. Realistically speaking I doubt any of these will happen. But, if nerfs to Protoss are to happen. Then, I'd like them to be good and intelligent tweaks rather than massive swings of the nerf hammer. This way Protoss get to still enjoy some of their new found HOTS flexibility while giving some back to Terran too. That way, hopefully, both races are better off in aggregate and Starcraft itself better off as a result.
Nobody has disagreed with the hellbat nerfs - but the amount they nerfed them. It was not a TvT nerf despite whatever they tell you: it was an accross the board nerf to Terran openings.
WM nerf was 'because TvZ is getting stale', another pretty terrible reason. Balance in TvZ was looking really good with the better player usually winning (Unlike now - see any LR threat). The problem was that the same game over and over and over and over got boring so Mines got nerfed.
I don't agree with that. That patch came after a whole bunch of rather silly TvT games. The unit itself was OK in TvZ and TvP from what I remember. I see no reason why Blizzard would lie. The nerf may have been over-heavy (I can't say for sure). But this is why, along with the WM nerf, I am generally against patching. Patches tend to cause more trouble than they are worth.
Bold position to hold (against patching) given the current state of the game.
My preferred approach to Blizzard's balancing is an adaptation of the UK's 4 stage strategy to Foreign Policy from Yes, Prime Minister.
Partially facetious? God I hope completely facetious. The skit appears to poke fun at the ineptitude of the UK foreign ministry.
Haha, it is wholly tongue in cheek from me and having a laugh! :D
And yeah, mate. There are times when you do need to patch. I accept that. But, it's difficult to know when and what. For example, right now I don't like the constriction in Terran play in TvP (the numbers are not the point). So, I think Blizzard should be tweaking Protoss by looking at PO, MSC vision and the Time Warp. These won't overturn PvZ too much, either.
Btw, if I remember right, you used to be a lot more in favour of patches and Blizzard intervention, no? (Or have I got that wrong?) You now seem to be in favour of a slow and incremental approach. What changed your mind?
Nope. I've always been for a measured approach. I vehemently opposed the culture of denial from the Protoss in TL. That might have given that impression to you. Acknowledging it is the first step; and it doesn't mean to accept massive nerfs.
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Win rates were really close to 50/50 before the nerf, and now I think that muta/ling vs bio/mine/thor favours zerg. I do feel the mine was probably too good pre nerf, but the tank "buff" was in no way adequate compensation.
I really miss that from BW, there was tons of OP shit, but it was ok since everyone had it. As soon as something sticks out in SC2 it gets mauled with the nerfhammer and some other unit is given a speed increase for no apparent reason.
Win rates were not 50/50 pre-nerf, they were grossly in T's favor, Soulkey was the only Zerg who could take games off Terran, and he had to vastly outplay his opponent to do so. Imbalanced TvZ was the primary reason we only got 2 Z's in '13 WCS Global Finals. WM nerf was not premature; in fact it was the complete opposite -- it should have been implemented way before it was, and part of the reason it took so long was because Zergs don't whine near as much, and when they do they are chastised and suppressed far more readily than the other races, I mean compare the amount of whine from Z during '13 WCS Global Finals versus what we get from Terrans now, the ratio is like 1:∞.
No. '113 WCS Global Finals include WCS points from 2 seasons, in which 2 of the seasons Terran was probably slightly stronger, in the third, however, Zerg was pretty much fine in TvZ. The game was really back and forth and the better player won. AND THEN the mine patch came.
Keep telling yourself that.
That is indeed a very mature way to argue!
Maybe if there was an argument to be had (there wasn't).
There is. You lost it because I called you out on proposing wrong evidence. Now take it or leave it.
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Win rates were really close to 50/50 before the nerf, and now I think that muta/ling vs bio/mine/thor favours zerg. I do feel the mine was probably too good pre nerf, but the tank "buff" was in no way adequate compensation.
I really miss that from BW, there was tons of OP shit, but it was ok since everyone had it. As soon as something sticks out in SC2 it gets mauled with the nerfhammer and some other unit is given a speed increase for no apparent reason.
Win rates were not 50/50 pre-nerf, they were grossly in T's favor, Soulkey was the only Zerg who could take games off Terran, and he had to vastly outplay his opponent to do so. Imbalanced TvZ was the primary reason we only got 2 Z's in '13 WCS Global Finals. WM nerf was not premature; in fact it was the complete opposite -- it should have been implemented way before it was, and part of the reason it took so long was because Zergs don't whine near as much, and when they do they are chastised and suppressed far more readily than the other races, I mean compare the amount of whine from Z during '13 WCS Global Finals versus what we get from Terrans now, the ratio is like 1:∞.
No. '113 WCS Global Finals include WCS points from 2 seasons, in which 2 of the seasons Terran was probably slightly stronger, in the third, however, Zerg was pretty much fine in TvZ. The game was really back and forth and the better player won. AND THEN the mine patch came.
Keep telling yourself that.
That is indeed a very mature way to argue!
Maybe if there was an argument to be had (there wasn't).
There is. You lost it because I called you out on proposing wrong evidence. Now take it or leave it.
"I'm right and you're wrong, so there! Take that!"
On February 08 2014 07:41 Wombat_NI wrote: WM nerf was premature IMO, just like the Queen patch in that it really did look that top Zergs were really figuring out ways to engage optimally anyway.
Win rates were really close to 50/50 before the nerf, and now I think that muta/ling vs bio/mine/thor favours zerg. I do feel the mine was probably too good pre nerf, but the tank "buff" was in no way adequate compensation.
I really miss that from BW, there was tons of OP shit, but it was ok since everyone had it. As soon as something sticks out in SC2 it gets mauled with the nerfhammer and some other unit is given a speed increase for no apparent reason.
Win rates were not 50/50 pre-nerf, they were grossly in T's favor, Soulkey was the only Zerg who could take games off Terran, and he had to vastly outplay his opponent to do so. Imbalanced TvZ was the primary reason we only got 2 Z's in '13 WCS Global Finals. WM nerf was not premature; in fact it was the complete opposite -- it should have been implemented way before it was, and part of the reason it took so long was because Zergs don't whine near as much, and when they do they are chastised and suppressed far more readily than the other races, I mean compare the amount of whine from Z during '13 WCS Global Finals versus what we get from Terrans now, the ratio is like 1:∞.
No. '113 WCS Global Finals include WCS points from 2 seasons, in which 2 of the seasons Terran was probably slightly stronger, in the third, however, Zerg was pretty much fine in TvZ. The game was really back and forth and the better player won. AND THEN the mine patch came.
Keep telling yourself that.
That is indeed a very mature way were to argue!
Maybe if there was an argument to be had (there wasn't).
There is. You lost it because I called you out on proposing wrong evidence. Now take it or leave it.
That's it. Release the anger.
No you were actually wrong. There was no gross imbalance tvz prior to the wm nerf , or at least not to the extent you describe. Describe. Sure zvt was hard, but it getting better. Despite not winning championships, JD was performing really well. Hyun won his first tournament, DRG beats innovation in the GSL. On the foreign front, scarlett was also doing well.
On February 08 2014 04:55 Ghanburighan wrote: Whitewing, do you really want to utter such nonsense:
The oracle has basically disappeared from pro PvTs, why does it need a nerf?
It was used in Trap v Supernova this morning... And it has been probably the macro opening for P since the buff. Sure, blink stalker is incredibly popular at the moment, but oracle still features in the majority of non-blink games.
It is not in the majority of pro games, and it only used in games like Trap vs. Supernova because it DOESN'T show up in every game. When it was popular there were games all the time where the oracle was defended and the protoss wound up behind. SoS was basically the only player on the planet who could make oracle openers work into a normal macro game without doing crippling levels of damage, and he was just plain playing better than his opponents.
I should point out that was someone says "it has basically disappeared" which means it is rare, rather than 100% non-existent, saying that "it happened once this morning!" is not evidence that they are wrong.
Blink stalker all-ins also just got a nerf, and I'm absolutely on board for a mothership core vision range nerf to nerf the blink stalker all-in more.
The goal when balancing a game is to make the smallest, most incremental changes possible to see if you hit your target.
The goal when designing a game is to make big changes and see what happens: they aren't currently designing though, they are balancing.
Fine, let's look at the previous big korean PvT match, Parting v TY. Did we have an oracle opening there? Yes we did... I could keep this going for a while, but, honestly, you live in your own world where facts don't seem to apply and the onus to prove things is on everyone but you.
No, you're just under the impression that PvT is horrifically imbalanced and that everything protoss does needs a nerf, wheras I think it's only slightly imbalanced and only a few minor changes are needed to even things out.
I also will admit to not watching GSL this season, I don't have a subscription and the times are bad for me, but I have seen proleague. Are you suggesting that oracle openers should not be viable?
Answer this then: How much damage does a 1 base oracle opener have to do to break even, given the investment into stargate, the unit, and where the toss would be without (faster nexus, faster robo, faster forges, etc.).
Well if you had looked at Code A you would had noticed that not a single Terran who played vs a Protoss made it into Code S. That Protoss went like 17/1 or something ridicoulous like that in maps and had 94% win ratio in maps and like 76% in series.
If you had looked at the last three major tournaments, we have seen 3 PvP finals. If you had payed attention to Code S you would had noticed there are 3 Terrans in round 32, and one of them got massacred today (so be it he played quite bad). Also you had noticed 4/4 players making it into round of 16 is Protoss.
If you also had payed attention to the IEM qualifier in Korea last night you might had noticed that a single Terran took a map vs a Protoss from round 16 and that was TY going for a inbase proxy baracks bunker rush that went unscouted vs Parting.
I can go on for ages - but if this is just a "small imbalance" - can you please explain to me what makes a.. Lets say standard sized imbalance?
Terran clearly now needs more than a Ghost buff.
At the moment Protoss has so many viable options that it does not matter if you nerf one of them slightly since there will be so many options left that still is superior to any Terran build.
Meanwhile Terran needs to go for the same boring build over and over again. Its not just about balance, its about actually being able to enjoy the game.
And that last part is what I really hope for Blizzard to change since I am so tired of playing TvP that I probably made my last ladder game yesterday until something changes. And I have made around 8K matches in Master League so it's probably only good for me to have some time off this game.
I agree that the msc should have a vision nerf: that will substantially reduce the power of the blink all-in by making the msc vastly more vulnerable, which should ease up the early game problems quite a bit. If terran isn't quite as concerned by a blink all-in, other options open up.
On February 08 2014 04:55 Ghanburighan wrote: Whitewing, do you really want to utter such nonsense:
The oracle has basically disappeared from pro PvTs, why does it need a nerf?
It was used in Trap v Supernova this morning... And it has been probably the macro opening for P since the buff. Sure, blink stalker is incredibly popular at the moment, but oracle still features in the majority of non-blink games.
It is not in the majority of pro games, and it only used in games like Trap vs. Supernova because it DOESN'T show up in every game. When it was popular there were games all the time where the oracle was defended and the protoss wound up behind. SoS was basically the only player on the planet who could make oracle openers work into a normal macro game without doing crippling levels of damage, and he was just plain playing better than his opponents.
I should point out that was someone says "it has basically disappeared" which means it is rare, rather than 100% non-existent, saying that "it happened once this morning!" is not evidence that they are wrong.
Blink stalker all-ins also just got a nerf, and I'm absolutely on board for a mothership core vision range nerf to nerf the blink stalker all-in more.
The goal when balancing a game is to make the smallest, most incremental changes possible to see if you hit your target.
The goal when designing a game is to make big changes and see what happens: they aren't currently designing though, they are balancing.
Fine, let's look at the previous big korean PvT match, Parting v TY. Did we have an oracle opening there? Yes we did... I could keep this going for a while, but, honestly, you live in your own world where facts don't seem to apply and the onus to prove things is on everyone but you.
No, you're just under the impression that PvT is horrifically imbalanced and that everything protoss does needs a nerf, wheras I think it's only slightly imbalanced and only a few minor changes are needed to even things out.
I also will admit to not watching GSL this season, I don't have a subscription and the times are bad for me, but I have seen proleague. Are you suggesting that oracle openers should not be viable?
Answer this then: How much damage does a 1 base oracle opener have to do to break even, given the investment into stargate, the unit, and where the toss would be without (faster nexus, faster robo, faster forges, etc.).
Well if you had looked at Code A you would had noticed that not a single Terran who played vs a Protoss made it into Code S. That Protoss went like 17/1 or something ridicoulous like that in maps and had 94% win ratio in maps and like 76% in series.
If you had looked at the last three major tournaments, we have seen 3 PvP finals. If you had payed attention to Code S you would had noticed there are 3 Terrans in round 32, and one of them got massacred today (so be it he played quite bad). Also you had noticed 4/4 players making it into round of 16 is Protoss.
If you also had payed attention to the IEM qualifier in Korea last night you might had noticed that a single Terran took a map vs a Protoss from round 16 and that was TY going for a inbase proxy baracks bunker rush that went unscouted vs Parting.
I can go on for ages - but if this is just a "small imbalance" - can you please explain to me what makes a.. Lets say standard sized imbalance?
Terran clearly now needs more than a Ghost buff.
At the moment Protoss has so many viable options that it does not matter if you nerf one of them slightly since there will be so many options left that still is superior to any Terran build.
Meanwhile Terran needs to go for the same boring build over and over again. Its not just about balance, its about actually being able to enjoy the game.
And that last part is what I really hope for Blizzard to change since I am so tired of playing TvP that I probably made my last ladder game yesterday until something changes. And I have made around 8K matches in Master League so it's probably only good for me to have some time off this game.
I agree that the msc should have a vision nerf: that will substantially reduce the power of the blink all-in by making the msc vastly more vulnerable, which should ease up the early game problems quite a bit. If terran isn't quite as concerned by a blink all-in, other options open up.
That should be enough to fix the matchup.
For MsC to be threatned, it's vision range has to be within marine attack range. Doubt that will go over well with any Protoss or with Blizzard. Instead, the most powerful templar follow-up after holding off blink stalker is nerfed with a buff to ghosts.
I think blink stalker all-ins have been nerfed indirectly. Terran can just drop a ghost academy after holding a blink all-in, and queue ghosts the moment they see templar tech. The fact that ghosts don't need energy upgrade is pretty good to deal with that follow up.
On February 06 2014 20:19 Dapper_Cad wrote: [quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
[quote]
European PvZ is especially broken for some reason.
[quote]
David Kim is watching swarm host games he likes (Proleague?)
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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?"
Thank you Dapper_Cad, Whitewing, Plansix, and all others that keep a positive state of mind. This is real discussion. I honestly get rather tired of poo flinging sometimes.
We do what we can. Sadly there are people who sill believe that do thy throw enough poo at Blizzard, it will somehow make them listen.
And what will you achieve? You're only gonna produce toned down and watered-out criticism in times when drastic measures are needed.
By your definition I am probably a poo flinger. However, I don't expect changes because people are whining. I expect changes because people are quitting the game. The whining is just a symptom.
edit: I might pick up StarBow though. Those new spider mines look awesome.
Well because I am so positive and a fan of MLG, they asked me to be a beta tester for their video player Xbox app. I also told them that they should focus on VODs, since that is a thing that twitch sucks at and I care about a lot. And when I complain about something or point out a problem, I normally get a response on twitter.
Do I change the world? Not likely. Am I listened to more than someone posting how much MLG sucked and needs to get their act together? Always.
You got to test a beta video player for Xbox. Oh the privilege, lol.
Money makes companies change their minds. That is why I don't play or watch SC2 anymore.
With all due respect, sir: by the following reasoning "Money makes companies change their minds. That is why I don't play or watch SC2 anymore." you should stop doing anything you usually do at all. Do you like sports? Movies? Music? Anything else? Food, clothing and houses? Drinking water and electricity? Because all of those are made by companies who change their minds when money is involved. That doesn't make them or their products bad.
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?
David Kim wrote: The first question in our minds don't matter as much at this point.
What a completely ignorant and idiotic statement.
So you spent months designing something (intending Swarmhosts to give Zerg an aggressive option mid-game) and it is used exactly in the opposite way that you intended (allowing Zergs to turtle in the mid and late game) causing a major game play issue, and it "don't matter"?
It does matter. Your design failed. Miserably. Hold yourself accountable. Say you learned from the mistake. Don't dismiss it as a non-issue. And what about the problem of Zergs not having aggressive options mid game to finish off opponents? Does that not matter anymore now?
Don't you understand David? You set out to fix a problem, failed, and now say the problem doesn't matter? Well then why did you try to fix it in the first place!? By ignoring his question, you're basically saying saying the initial problem didn't exist and that you have no plans to fix it.
This sums up the design team perfectly. They simply have no idea what they are doing. They try to "fix" an issue, fail, and then forget about fixing said problem, because they realize the issue actually wasn't a problem in the first place. And we are left the the "results" (ie Swarmhost) which they then try to somehow fit into the game. And often the "results" overlap with existing units, ie Tempests. Remember Tempests solving the non-existent Muta problem in WOL? Yeah, me too. Now Tempests are just a replacement for the Carrier, performing nearly the same role (long range capital ship). Frankly, I'm not sure what is worse: Blizzard's inability to identify real problems with the game, or their inability to implement in the game what they had planned to implement.
Either way, it is really laughable how brain-dead that comment is. David, you really know how to spew the political bullshit. Too bad you aren't as good at designing units that actually perform the role you intend them to.
I wish this comment hadn't gotten as buried as it did, because this lack of responsibility and accountability might be the most infuriating thing about the SC2 design process (of which Blizzard has made us a part, for better or worse).
If they were constantly trying different things and transparent about their motivations for trying these things, there would still be disagreements -- but they would be about facts. How can we have a meaningful discussion with Blizzard when we don't understand what they want from this game.
For instance, they say they want mech to be playable, but the steps they take to make this happen are so obnoxiously indirect, their words become seriously suspect. They buff Ghosts to buff mech? First of all, the buff is extremely one-dimensional (possibly opening new timings), second it does more for bio than mech. If they were being transparent, they would say, "we expect this to increase Terran midgame all-in viability with bio, which would be a desirable secondary outcome, and we're trying to hit two birds with one stone." Then we could retort, "But we don't want Terran to have any more midgame all-in viability with bio than they already do!" and have an evolving discussion, instead of talking about symptoms every time. Are they actually not able to put 2+2 together, or are they being hopelessly optimistic, or are they trying to mislead us? Why do we have to guess what their true motivation is? Why can't they simply fucking say?
Then, WHAT KIND of mech do they want to be playable? TvT aggressive mech? ZvT turtle mech? If it's turtle mech without a fix to the game's economy, then thanks but no thanks. Nobody wants that. Even Blizz is gearing up to nerf Ravens, except Ravens don't need a nerf, they need a redesign. After four years, can't this be a dialogue instead of the same non-committal non-answers over and over again?
The truth is they completely and utterly botched Heart of the Swarm in every way except a slightly improved PvP, a temporary reprieve in lategame PvZ (there goes that!) and giving Protoss early map presence and aggressive macro openings, which is a fantastic change in theory but in practice it's taken PvT from a stale MU where Terrans win with boring all-ins/early pressure or Protoss win macro wars, and shit all over it, making us look back on those days fondly. David Kim says "we don't redesign in patches" which would be fine if they redesigned in expansions but they don't. The changes to Terran from WOL to HOTS are... one core unit for one MU (which then got nerfed without nerfing the correspondingly buffed Muta), one boring, nichey half-unit (Hellbat), and easier transition from mech to air -- which allows for extremely tedious SkyTerran, thank god for that. And let's not forget the Warhound, which was so awful, Terrans begged to have it go away (and be replaced, which Blizz forgot to do).
HOTS alpha+beta took, what, one year? One and a half? Anyone on this forum would be capable of coming up with 50 units in a single day that would be worth testing out. They couldn't do worse than the Warhound, that's for sure. Blizzard tried out three, then cut one. Then they have the gall to not redesign in patches! If you did your job when you were supposed to, maybe you wouldn't have to.
Here's my prediction for what happens: SC2 will survive, no doubt boosted by LOTV sales, but viewership will drop steadily and Blizzard will have their proof that putting money into RTS is not a great investment. And then the next time they start talking about competitive RTS, they'll think twice. "Sure," they'll say, "if we'd designed the game better, maybe things would have turned out differently... or maybe they wouldn't have. Why take the risk?" I hope this doesn't happen, but the "come what may" attitude and pathological unwillingness to have an open discussion about the issues hampering this game doesn't give me much hope.
Let's just say that your post is unreasonable. You would need 50 months to test 50 units to get any reasonably useful results. And your claim that Blizzard tried "3 units" is just plain wrong. You only see one tiny snapshot of the development process. You have no idea of all the single-player-only units, or those that were cut from single player. The sentry alone has like 3 different cut versions that didn't make it into the game.
I feel like at this point SC2's team has designated certain mechanics and units "untouchable". Reasonably so, as changing anything drastically will disturb the status quo too much.
If we wanted things like "no deathball" and "more micro", the time was during beta.
For SC1 the outcry against their design decisions transformed "Orcs in space" into Starcraft and later Starcraft: Brood War. For SC2 the outcry against their design decisions... ...gave us tweaked and fiddled numbers.
At this point most suggestions from the community turns into backseat developing, which never goes anywhere. Go out and really DESIGN a game.
In conclusion, go give Starbow a look-over and you will see what SC2 should have been.
On February 08 2014 20:02 S1eth wrote: Let's just say that your post is unreasonable. You would need 50 months to test 50 units to get any reasonably useful results. And your claim that Blizzard tried "3 units" is just plain wrong. You only see one tiny snapshot of the development process. You have no idea of all the single-player-only units, or those that were cut from single player. The sentry alone has like 3 different cut versions that didn't make it into the game.
It doesn´t matter how much they tried out, in the end the result is what matters. And after close to one year HotS, the only new feature/unit for terran, that really matters in the game, is the medivac speed. No combined upgrades for mech/air is not a new feature but a terrible way of game design as is removing the energy upgrade for ghosts and making them start with 75 energy. Mech in SC2 will allways be turtle mech, because it takes so long to have an army that can fight in open field! You get there with bio much faster, you get there with Z/P much faster too. Most players don´t like to play against turtling players and most viewers don´t like to watch players that turtle every game. So I don´t get at all, where the desire comes from, to make mech as a stand alone strategy viable. I guess it´s just to have an alternative to the same unit comps from terran over and over again. But it would be much more interesting to have most mech units synergize with a core army of bio units, because the resulting playstyle would be much more dynamic. In Broodwar Mech was much more dynamic too, and this has several reasons: 1. the vulture could deal with any ground units thanks to spider mines. So there was allways potential for the unit to do something. Hellions get shutdown by a couple of roaches and a queen or marauders. 2. tanks were very microable in tank mode and therefor, you could play much more agressive. Also point one helped a lot to be agressive early on. 3. The goliath was a microable allround mech fighter with a decent movement speed. You can only be agressive if you have either an unbeatable army or mobility. In BW mech still had an okay mobility and could cover retreats with spider mines and it had micro potential on every unit. In SC2 you have some micro potential on the hellion and that´s it.
ergo: Nobody should want mech as a stand alone playstyle viable, because this will only lead to the most boring games, once the freshness factor is gone! The mech units have to be designed to synergyze with core armies of bio!
On February 08 2014 09:01 TheDwf wrote: Perhaps an interesting option for the Mine would be to further weaken it, but reduce a bit the production time and make it 1 supply.
So happy to see someone else make this suggestion. I've only recently started dabbling into terran but this change quickly crossed my mind. I think it would solve quite a few problems with the race.
On February 08 2014 20:20 Qwerty85 wrote: What I got form this is: main focus is PvZ, TvP is fine but "we will closely monitor the situation" etc, TvZ ravens will get nerfed.
On February 08 2014 09:01 TheDwf wrote: Perhaps an interesting option for the Mine would be to further weaken it, but reduce a bit the production time and make it 1 supply.
I like that idea!
Sadly, that is probably a 'redesign' so we'll have to wait for that...
EDIT: What purpose is it going to fulfill? It's not going to have the AoE vs MLB, probably becomes an anti-stack Air + poor static defense?
That Q&A was bad and by pointing out that he gave us 10 copied & pasted answers from same old questions I got a 3 day temp ban from B.net. No words on redesign plans, what to do when players just refuse to unit in the way they thought it should be used (SH), on winrates, more diversity, changes proposed by players. It's like he had all the answers ready and was just waiting for the right questions to fit them in. I expected a lot more from that Q&A, but maybe I'm just a harasser.
On February 08 2014 12:05 plogamer wrote: Instead, the most powerful templar follow-up after holding off blink stalker is nerfed with a buff to ghosts.
I think blink stalker all-ins have been nerfed indirectly. Terran can just drop a ghost academy after holding a blink all-in, and queue ghosts the moment they see templar tech. The fact that ghosts don't need energy upgrade is pretty good to deal with that follow up.
Ghost buff did nothing. Even without energy upgrade ghost will have emp when he arrive to the protoss base. And 1 additional snipe per ghost mean nothing. It is the same useless buff as it was with 10% tank attack speed buff.
I even rechecked bombers scv pull allin with ghosts - he didn't do energy upgrade for this...
without upgrade ghost will be better in defence... but who will build ghosts for defence? don't know may be kim think that terran suppose tp build ghosts instead of 5bunkkers to defend blink allin?
On February 08 2014 12:05 plogamer wrote: Instead, the most powerful templar follow-up after holding off blink stalker is nerfed with a buff to ghosts.
I think blink stalker all-ins have been nerfed indirectly. Terran can just drop a ghost academy after holding a blink all-in, and queue ghosts the moment they see templar tech. The fact that ghosts don't need energy upgrade is pretty good to deal with that follow up.
Ghost buff did nothing. Even without energy upgrade ghost will have emp when he arrive to the protoss base. And 1 additional snipe per ghost mean nothing. It is the same useless buff as it was with 10% tank attack speed buff.
I even rechecked bombers scv pull allin with ghosts - he didn't do energy upgrade for this...
without upgrade ghost will be better in defence... but who will build ghosts for defence? don't know may be kim think that terran suppose tp build ghosts instead of 5bunkkers to defend blink allin?
Stop saying any buff or nerf "does nothing". You know you're wrong.
On February 08 2014 12:05 plogamer wrote: Instead, the most powerful templar follow-up after holding off blink stalker is nerfed with a buff to ghosts.
I think blink stalker all-ins have been nerfed indirectly. Terran can just drop a ghost academy after holding a blink all-in, and queue ghosts the moment they see templar tech. The fact that ghosts don't need energy upgrade is pretty good to deal with that follow up.
Ghost buff did nothing. Even without energy upgrade ghost will have emp when he arrive to the protoss base. And 1 additional snipe per ghost mean nothing. It is the same useless buff as it was with 10% tank attack speed buff.
I even rechecked bombers scv pull allin with ghosts - he didn't do energy upgrade for this...
without upgrade ghost will be better in defence... but who will build ghosts for defence? don't know may be kim think that terran suppose tp build ghosts instead of 5bunkkers to defend blink allin?
Stop saying any buff or nerf "does nothing". You know you're wrong.
ok if i'm wrong show me exanple where this shity +10% tank attack sppeed buff affected the result of the game?
People compared tanks with attack speed 3 and 2.7 - it doesn't change anything simply because fight is over in 3 may be 4 tank shots. And those buff gave tank 1 more shot each 30sec wow how awsome. Now i just need to wait when blizz fix balance and fights will last long enough...
On February 08 2014 12:05 plogamer wrote: Instead, the most powerful templar follow-up after holding off blink stalker is nerfed with a buff to ghosts.
I think blink stalker all-ins have been nerfed indirectly. Terran can just drop a ghost academy after holding a blink all-in, and queue ghosts the moment they see templar tech. The fact that ghosts don't need energy upgrade is pretty good to deal with that follow up.
Ghost buff did nothing. Even without energy upgrade ghost will have emp when he arrive to the protoss base. And 1 additional snipe per ghost mean nothing. It is the same useless buff as it was with 10% tank attack speed buff.
I even rechecked bombers scv pull allin with ghosts - he didn't do energy upgrade for this...
without upgrade ghost will be better in defence... but who will build ghosts for defence? don't know may be kim think that terran suppose tp build ghosts instead of 5bunkkers to defend blink allin?
Stop saying any buff or nerf "does nothing". You know you're wrong.
ok if i'm wrong show me exanple where this shity +10% tank attack sppeed buff affected the result of the game?
People compared tanks with attack speed 3 and 2.7 - it doesn't change anything simply because fight is over in 3 may be 4 tank shots. And those buff gave tank 1 more shot each 30sec wow how awsome. Now i just need to wait when blizz fix balance and fights will last long enough...
The difference is also in how fast the tank shot happens. Just for comparison, A marine shoots 6 damage every .86 seconds IIRC.
Now let's change marines to do 45 damage after 8.7 seconds.
Now, Marines usually won't deal any damage at all.
As for the Ghost buff, we can't say after half a week whether it did anything or not.
It's an 11% attack speed increase, So you'll occasionally see tanks getting an additional shot off before they die/their targets leave their range. You can't deny that it did change something. You can usually count on your tanks to be around 11% more effective.
And showing a game that was solely decided by an 11% tank buff? You can't be serious. a) That patch is not supposed to win you games on its own b) It's already (nearly) impossible to pinpoint when an Oracle wins games because of its speedbuff, and that's when there's only 1 Oracle on the field. Try counting shots for ~12-20 tanks.
Actually it's easier to see how oracles are better. There is an impressive number of occurrences where an oracle gets away with sub-20 hp. This means that before the patch either that oracle was dead, or the Protoss player would have had to move it away earlier, so maybe he had to play more carefully. Plus, before patch, oracle speed was the same as stim marines, and with low acceleration this meant you could catch an oracle just starting to move. Now speed and acceleration are way higher so it's nearly impossible to lose an oracle to stim marines.
The thing about the tank buff isn't necessarily how much more damage the tank will do, its how much less damage will be done to you because of the tank buff. It very easily can be the difference between that roach, stalker, or marauder getting off one more volley or not and that is where it is amazing. The tank may only fire 4 shots in a battle either way, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't more effective (by killing faster, reducing the total number of incoming damage).
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.
a majority of the players (including pros) agree on the fact that WG and forcefields are a bad and boring way to design a race, his attitude towards it really makes me sad.
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.
a majority of the players (including pros) agree on the fact that WG and forcefields are a bad and boring way to design a race, his attitude towards it really makes me sad.
Oh really? Let's poll every single player who plays the game in its entirety and every pro and ask their opinion.
You have no idea what the data looks like, a lot of pros don't even discuss design at all, and believe it or not, there are a crap ton of players that don't hang out on reddit or team liquid.
As for people discussing the tank buff and whether it did anything or not: it's not just whether it got an extra shot off, but the fact that each follow up shot comes faster means it deals it's damage quicker, which has the result of killing the enemy units slightly faster. This means those enemy units might get off fewer attacks on your own stuff, meaning the rest of your units live longer to deal more damage. End result being that the tank buff means you take less damage in battle. It's a non-obvious buff but it absolutely is a buff.
On February 09 2014 01:13 JustPassingBy wrote: Please don't use DK as abbreviation for David Kim, am I really the only guy who keeps reading it as Donkey Kong??? D:
if you're true SC2 fan, DK should David Kim for you. you can name it differently:
- Kim - DKim - Dayvie - "best balance designer in the world" - Dakim
Oh really? Let's poll every single player who plays the game in its entirety and every pro and ask their opinion.
You have no idea what the data looks like, a lot of pros don't even discuss design at all, and believe it or not, there are a crap ton of players that don't hang out on reddit or team liquid.
As for people discussing the tank buff and whether it did anything or not: it's not just whether it got an extra shot off, but the fact that each follow up shot comes faster means it deals it's damage quicker, which has the result of killing the enemy units slightly faster. This means those enemy units might get off fewer attacks on your own stuff, meaning the rest of your units live longer to deal more damage. End result being that the tank buff means you take less damage in battle. It's a non-obvious buff but it absolutely is a buff.
The Tank buff was a HUGE buff for the match up it was already used in.... made 2 Tanks have the power of 3 in a small skirmish which actually made me CHange my TvT around completely... but in TvZ and TvP its useless because oof the units that ez counter it that is actually ez for both races to get..... and TvP has A CRAP TON of early weakness that can be insanely exploited worse than Bio Openers
On February 09 2014 01:13 JustPassingBy wrote: Please don't use DK as abbreviation for David Kim, am I really the only guy who keeps reading it as Donkey Kong??? D:
I actually think about Death Knight every time i hear DK, must be my WC3 time..
It always kills me when so many people complain about balance in such a negative way. Is why I generally read and rarely post. I mean there isnt anything wrong with contributing a worthwhile opinion and helping make our game better. However, these forums are always so full of idiots and their one-liners. Bronze league bitches who throw "pro players say this and that" out there when they don't even know what their talking about. You're so obvious. . . Yes, sc2 has balance issues. Yes it will be an ongoing discussion and the game will grow throughout it's lifespan. I will say this though, starcraft 2 is the most balanced game in human history since chess. (chess has many small imbalances as well) Starcraft 2 is absolutely the greatest game in the world. It's people like you guys that stir the pot and spread negativity. Negativity destroys communities and without community, we have no game.
On February 09 2014 01:13 JustPassingBy wrote: Please don't use DK as abbreviation for David Kim, am I really the only guy who keeps reading it as Donkey Kong??? D:
I actually think about Death Knight every time i hear DK, must be my WC3 time..
On February 09 2014 01:13 JustPassingBy wrote: Please don't use DK as abbreviation for David Kim, am I really the only guy who keeps reading it as Donkey Kong??? D:
I actually think about Death Knight every time i hear DK, must be my WC3 time..
I usually do DK, sorry, will try to limit it :D
Haha, dont worry! I always read "Death Knight" but then i think: wait, that doesnt make sense! and re-read the sentence. Then i see you are talking about David Kim
Edit:
On February 09 2014 01:42 Axxis wrote: It always kills me when so many people complain about balance in such a negative way. Is why I generally read and rarely post. I mean there isnt anything wrong with contributing a worthwhile opinion and helping make our game better. However, these forums are always so full of idiots and their one-liners. Bronze league bitches who throw "pro players say this and that" out there when they don't even know what their talking about. You're so obvious. . . Yes, sc2 has balance issues. Yes it will be an ongoing discussion and the game will grow throughout it's lifespan. I will say this though, starcraft 2 is the most balanced game in human history since chess. (chess has many small imbalances as well) Starcraft 2 is absolutely the greatest game in the world. It's people like you guys that stir the pot and spread negativity. Negativity destroys communities and without community, we have no game.
I like your passion, and you raise some valid points. A lot of people (including me i guess lol) are quick to hate on something that isnt good in their eyes without contributing anything usefull.
However, saying Starcraft 2 is the most balanced game in human history is a little... over the top. It is not as bad as you think it would be if you read this thread, but its far far far away from being the most balanced game.
On February 09 2014 01:42 Axxis wrote: It always kills me when so many people complain about balance in such a negative way. Is why I generally read and rarely post. I mean there isnt anything wrong with contributing a worthwhile opinion and helping make our game better. However, these forums are always so full of idiots and their one-liners. Bronze league bitches who throw "pro players say this and that" out there when they don't even know what their talking about. You're so obvious. . . Yes, sc2 has balance issues. Yes it will be an ongoing discussion and the game will grow throughout it's lifespan. I will say this though, starcraft 2 is the most balanced game in human history since chess. (chess has many small imbalances as well) Starcraft 2 is absolutely the greatest game in the world. It's people like you guys that stir the pot and spread negativity. Negativity destroys communities and without community, we have no game.
Keep that up and one day you'll believe it. Perhaps it's already too late? I'm sorry.
On February 09 2014 01:42 Axxis wrote: It always kills me when so many people complain about balance in such a negative way. Is why I generally read and rarely post. I mean there isnt anything wrong with contributing a worthwhile opinion and helping make our game better. However, these forums are always so full of idiots and their one-liners. Bronze league bitches who throw "pro players say this and that" out there when they don't even know what their talking about. You're so obvious. . . Yes, sc2 has balance issues. Yes it will be an ongoing discussion and the game will grow throughout it's lifespan. I will say this though, starcraft 2 is the most balanced game in human history since chess. (chess has many small imbalances as well) Starcraft 2 is absolutely the greatest game in the world. It's people like you guys that stir the pot and spread negativity. Negativity destroys communities and without community, we have no game.
Keep that up and one day you'll believe it. Perhaps it's already too late? I'm sorry.
Sometimes you wonder who those guys are behind those 8posts... Like, do they keep back until they find something really valueable to say like that? Are they some of those many people joining the SC2 community day by day?
Anyways, clearly we should trust in such well articulated, absolutly not borderline gamebashing, borderline insulting oneliners as yours instead of enjoying the game these forums are about.
On February 09 2014 01:42 Axxis wrote: It always kills me when so many people complain about balance in such a negative way. Is why I generally read and rarely post. I mean there isnt anything wrong with contributing a worthwhile opinion and helping make our game better. However, these forums are always so full of idiots and their one-liners. Bronze league bitches who throw "pro players say this and that" out there when they don't even know what their talking about. You're so obvious. . . Yes, sc2 has balance issues. Yes it will be an ongoing discussion and the game will grow throughout it's lifespan. I will say this though, starcraft 2 is the most balanced game in human history since chess. (chess has many small imbalances as well) Starcraft 2 is absolutely the greatest game in the world. It's people like you guys that stir the pot and spread negativity. Negativity destroys communities and without community, we have no game.
Keep that up and one day you'll believe it. Perhaps it's already too late? I'm sorry.
Sometimes you wonder who those guys are behind those 8posts... Like, do they keep back until they find something really valueable to say like that? Are they some of those many people joining the SC2 community day by day?
Anyways, clearly we should trust in such well articulated, absolutly not borderline gamebashing, borderline insulting oneliners as yours instead of enjoying the game these forums are about.
PBU's like me who come back and fall into the same patterns and missbehaviour (kinda unlike me xP)
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.
a majority of the players (including pros) agree on the fact that WG and forcefields are a bad and boring way to design a race, his attitude towards it really makes me sad.
Oh really? Let's poll every single player who plays the game in its entirety and every pro and ask their opinion.
You have no idea what the data looks like, a lot of pros don't even discuss design at all, and believe it or not, there are a crap ton of players that don't hang out on reddit or team liquid.
As for people discussing the tank buff and whether it did anything or not: it's not just whether it got an extra shot off, but the fact that each follow up shot comes faster means it deals it's damage quicker, which has the result of killing the enemy units slightly faster. This means those enemy units might get off fewer attacks on your own stuff, meaning the rest of your units live longer to deal more damage. End result being that the tank buff means you take less damage in battle. It's a non-obvious buff but it absolutely is a buff.
fair enough. it was a poor choice of words from me, nevertheless quite a few players have been voicing their concerns about said mechanics and the way they shape the racedesign/gameplay.
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.
a majority of the players (including pros) agree on the fact that WG and forcefields are a bad and boring way to design a race, his attitude towards it really makes me sad.
Oh really? Let's poll every single player who plays the game in its entirety and every pro and ask their opinion.
You have no idea what the data looks like, a lot of pros don't even discuss design at all, and believe it or not, there are a crap ton of players that don't hang out on reddit or team liquid.
As for people discussing the tank buff and whether it did anything or not: it's not just whether it got an extra shot off, but the fact that each follow up shot comes faster means it deals it's damage quicker, which has the result of killing the enemy units slightly faster. This means those enemy units might get off fewer attacks on your own stuff, meaning the rest of your units live longer to deal more damage. End result being that the tank buff means you take less damage in battle. It's a non-obvious buff but it absolutely is a buff.
Of course the tank buff is a buff. When something gets better it can be considered as a buff. If Ultralisks would get 10 more HP, we would also call it a buff. But nobody would say, that this is gamechanging in any way. And the tank buff follows the same scheme. The only thing that made terran overall stronger in a non-mirror matchup is the upgrade merge. But one can argue if the result is pleasant.
I woudln't consider it pleasant... the Transition From Bio into Late Game Bcz becomes longer that of Mech INto the Late game transition because of those upgrades... and now tanks being stronger Bio is pretty much a Piece of crap even worse than playing against Protoss... LOL
I simply have to quote this again because its the fu..ing truth. What i don't get at all is this. How can David Kim declare himself the biggest SC/SC2-Fan and at the same time working as hard as possible on the fall of Starcraft by refusing to face the root-problems of the game. Those root-problems are and have always been Warpgate and Forcefield (not to say thats all of them). A lot of the problems later occured as consequence of these two designs. For example: The trend of Zerg going for ultra lategame in ZvP (Broodlord/Infestor; Swarmhost-Turtle) in my opinion is because of the volatility of the matchup. Its far too easy for Zerg to lose a game in the blink of an eye. Oh btw... The reason the Infestor got buffed in WoL was for Zerg to have something to deal with forcefields. I dont have to tell anyone how retarded that ended up. One could write hundrets of pages about whats wrong with the game and Blizzards approach to balance it.
What i would like DK and the crew to do is this: 1. Stop trying to make fools of us by your PR-Talk. You waste your time talking and writing for hours while saying nothing of substance at all. We are not that stupid! 2. Take a deep breath, lean back and look at viewerstatistics. Find out what matches made the audience go crazy (good for the game) and what matches bored the viewers to death (bad for the game). ZvT and TvT for example produce so many good matches. PvP produces so many horrible matches that it makes you want to throw your hardware out of the window. Figure out why a certain game is rated good and why a certain match is rated bad. 3. Look at what the most common reasons for a boring match are. 4. Find reasons for the cause of the problem. 5. Find reasons for the cause of the cause of the problem. 6. Go back until you cant get any further. 7. Fix the root-problem. 8. Then fix all the little things. I actually would call it tweaking. You deny the problems that need to be fixed and instead tweaking little things that keep you and us occupied but dont change shit about whats wrong with the game. And (by the way) what stands between current SC2 and the SC2 we all want.
Its not so much about winpercentages its about weather or not people enjoy the game. If i want perfect balance i take a coin and flip it. Its balanced perfectly but at the same time boring as shit.
I could go on and on but has to be it for now. I still dont give up on SC2 but i am so utterly pissed.
QUOTE]On February 08 2014 16:20 pure.Wasted wrote:
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?
David Kim wrote: The first question in our minds don't matter as much at this point.
What a completely ignorant and idiotic statement.
So you spent months designing something (intending Swarmhosts to give Zerg an aggressive option mid-game) and it is used exactly in the opposite way that you intended (allowing Zergs to turtle in the mid and late game) causing a major game play issue, and it "don't matter"?
It does matter. Your design failed. Miserably. Hold yourself accountable. Say you learned from the mistake. Don't dismiss it as a non-issue. And what about the problem of Zergs not having aggressive options mid game to finish off opponents? Does that not matter anymore now?
Don't you understand David? You set out to fix a problem, failed, and now say the problem doesn't matter? Well then why did you try to fix it in the first place!? By ignoring his question, you're basically saying saying the initial problem didn't exist and that you have no plans to fix it.
This sums up the design team perfectly. They simply have no idea what they are doing. They try to "fix" an issue, fail, and then forget about fixing said problem, because they realize the issue actually wasn't a problem in the first place. And we are left the the "results" (ie Swarmhost) which they then try to somehow fit into the game. And often the "results" overlap with existing units, ie Tempests. Remember Tempests solving the non-existent Muta problem in WOL? Yeah, me too. Now Tempests are just a replacement for the Carrier, performing nearly the same role (long range capital ship). Frankly, I'm not sure what is worse: Blizzard's inability to identify real problems with the game, or their inability to implement in the game what they had planned to implement.
Either way, it is really laughable how brain-dead that comment is. David, you really know how to spew the political bullshit. Too bad you aren't as good at designing units that actually perform the role you intend them to.
I wish this comment hadn't gotten as buried as it did, because this lack of responsibility and accountability might be the most infuriating thing about the SC2 design process (of which Blizzard has made us a part, for better or worse).
If they were constantly trying different things and transparent about their motivations for trying these things, there would still be disagreements -- but they would be about facts. How can we have a meaningful discussion with Blizzard when we don't understand what they want from this game.
For instance, they say they want mech to be playable, but the steps they take to make this happen are so obnoxiously indirect, their words become seriously suspect. They buff Ghosts to buff mech? First of all, the buff is extremely one-dimensional (possibly opening new timings), second it does more for bio than mech. If they were being transparent, they would say, "we expect this to increase Terran midgame all-in viability with bio, which would be a desirable secondary outcome, and we're trying to hit two birds with one stone." Then we could retort, "But we don't want Terran to have any more midgame all-in viability with bio than they already do!" and have an evolving discussion, instead of talking about symptoms every time. Are they actually not able to put 2+2 together, or are they being hopelessly optimistic, or are they trying to mislead us? Why do we have to guess what their true motivation is? Why can't they simply fucking say?
Then, WHAT KIND of mech do they want to be playable? TvT aggressive mech? ZvT turtle mech? If it's turtle mech without a fix to the game's economy, then thanks but no thanks. Nobody wants that. Even Blizz is gearing up to nerf Ravens, except Ravens don't need a nerf, they need a redesign. After four years, can't this be a dialogue instead of the same non-committal non-answers over and over again?
The truth is they completely and utterly botched Heart of the Swarm in every way except a slightly improved PvP, a temporary reprieve in lategame PvZ (there goes that!) and giving Protoss early map presence and aggressive macro openings, which is a fantastic change in theory but in practice it's taken PvT from a stale MU where Terrans win with boring all-ins/early pressure or Protoss win macro wars, and shit all over it, making us look back on those days fondly. David Kim says "we don't redesign in patches" which would be fine if they redesigned in expansions but they don't. The changes to Terran from WOL to HOTS are... one core unit for one MU (which then got nerfed without nerfing the correspondingly buffed Muta), one boring, nichey half-unit (Hellbat), and easier transition from mech to air -- which allows for extremely tedious SkyTerran, thank god for that. And let's not forget the Warhound, which was so awful, Terrans begged to have it go away (and be replaced, which Blizz forgot to do).
HOTS alpha+beta took, what, one year? One and a half? Anyone on this forum would be capable of coming up with 50 units in a single day that would be worth testing out. They couldn't do worse than the Warhound, that's for sure. Blizzard tried out three, then cut one. Then they have the gall to not redesign in patches! If you did your job when you were supposed to, maybe you wouldn't have to.
Here's my prediction for what happens: SC2 will survive, no doubt boosted by LOTV sales, but viewership will drop steadily and Blizzard will have their proof that putting money into RTS is not a great investment. And then the next time they start talking about competitive RTS, they'll think twice. "Sure," they'll say, "if we'd designed the game better, maybe things would have turned out differently... or maybe they wouldn't have. Why take the risk?" I hope this doesn't happen, but the "come what may" attitude and pathological unwillingness to have an open discussion about the issues hampering this game doesn't give me much hope. [/QUOTE]
On February 08 2014 12:05 plogamer wrote: Instead, the most powerful templar follow-up after holding off blink stalker is nerfed with a buff to ghosts.
I think blink stalker all-ins have been nerfed indirectly. Terran can just drop a ghost academy after holding a blink all-in, and queue ghosts the moment they see templar tech. The fact that ghosts don't need energy upgrade is pretty good to deal with that follow up.
Ghost buff did nothing. Even without energy upgrade ghost will have emp when he arrive to the protoss base. And 1 additional snipe per ghost mean nothing. It is the same useless buff as it was with 10% tank attack speed buff.
I even rechecked bombers scv pull allin with ghosts - he didn't do energy upgrade for this...
without upgrade ghost will be better in defence... but who will build ghosts for defence? don't know may be kim think that terran suppose tp build ghosts instead of 5bunkkers to defend blink allin?
What made blink-stalker all-ins very powerful? Ask anyone. It's the templar follow up. A protoss that failed a blink-stalker all-in can easily transition and have storms ready for the Terran counter-attack.
Of course, it depends on how badly the all-in fails. If the Protoss fails miserably and loses all his stalkers, then the transition to templar is a non-issue. But in most games, Protoss that fail the blink-stalker all-in (as in, getting repelled without losing too many stalkers) make that transition to templar - even following up with chargelot/archon or chargelot/archon/templar.
The follow up to templar is now less potent because the time it takes the Terran to make an effective ghost switch is now reduced by the duration of the moebius reactor.
Yes, it doesn't do much to buff the vaunted scv pull. Well, even then, extra emps is always fucking nice when the Protoss splits up templars. I don't see how you can't see that. EMP is a weak spell compared to storm, but it's still pretty nice.
Now bomber's scv pull allin with ghosts has extra emp for each ghost he makes. If he made 4 ghosts, he'll have 8 emps rather than 4 by the time his ghosts walk to the Protoss base. That gives more room for error.
TLDR, now Terrans can make 5 bunkers to hold blink-stalker and not be completely fucked by the templar switch. (I make seige tanks + bunkers, so I don't need that many but w/e)
ps. I'm not certain if it's enough of a buff to Terran yet. Blinkstalkers still are extremely strong, picking off my tanks and shit. But let's wait a bit before we make Terran OP. It's better for the game to balanced in gradual, measured tones, imo.
On February 08 2014 12:05 plogamer wrote: Instead, the most powerful templar follow-up after holding off blink stalker is nerfed with a buff to ghosts.
I think blink stalker all-ins have been nerfed indirectly. Terran can just drop a ghost academy after holding a blink all-in, and queue ghosts the moment they see templar tech. The fact that ghosts don't need energy upgrade is pretty good to deal with that follow up.
Ghost buff did nothing. Even without energy upgrade ghost will have emp when he arrive to the protoss base. And 1 additional snipe per ghost mean nothing. It is the same useless buff as it was with 10% tank attack speed buff.
I even rechecked bombers scv pull allin with ghosts - he didn't do energy upgrade for this...
without upgrade ghost will be better in defence... but who will build ghosts for defence? don't know may be kim think that terran suppose tp build ghosts instead of 5bunkkers to defend blink allin?
What made blink-stalker all-ins very powerful? Ask anyone. It's the templar follow up. A protoss that failed a blink-stalker all-in can easily transition and have storms ready for the Terran counter-attack.
Of course, it depends on how badly the all-in fails. If the Protoss fails miserably and loses all his stalkers, then the transition to templar is a non-issue. But in most games, Protoss that fail the blink-stalker all-in (as in, getting repelled without losing too many stalkers) make that transition to templar - even following up with chargelot/archon or chargelot/archon/templar.
The follow up to templar is now less potent because the time it takes the Terran to make an effective ghost switch is now reduced by the duration of the moebius reactor.
Yes, it doesn't do much to buff the vaunted scv pull. Well, even then, extra emps is always fucking nice when the Protoss splits up templars. I don't see how you can't see that. EMP is a weak spell compared to storm, but it's still pretty nice.
Now bomber's scv pull allin with ghosts has extra emp for each ghost he makes. If he made 4 ghosts, he'll have 8 emps rather than 4 by the time his ghosts walk to the Protoss base. That gives more room for error.
TLDR, now Terrans can make 5 bunkers to hold blink-stalker and not be completely fucked by the templar switch. (I make seige tanks + bunkers, so I don't need that many but w/e)
Pre-patch: Ghost spawns with 50 energy; 45 seconds are needed to get the EMP, which is done when you reach Protoss' base. Post-patch: Ghost spawns with 75 energy; 135 seconds (2 minuts 15) are needed to get a second EMP, so no, you won't have a second EMP for 3 Ghosts SCVs pulls. The patch has like zero effect on this strategy.
Likewise, you're still massively behind if you get mass Bunkers against a Templar transition. There is no 3 Ghosts timing you can use to immediately counter and win. That is why I suggested to lengthen the time it takes to get Storm, to increase the window of vulnerability and thus introduce some risk to 2-bases Blink into Storm instead of being a free attempt at winning the game into being ahead in most cases anyway.
On February 08 2014 12:05 plogamer wrote: Instead, the most powerful templar follow-up after holding off blink stalker is nerfed with a buff to ghosts.
I think blink stalker all-ins have been nerfed indirectly. Terran can just drop a ghost academy after holding a blink all-in, and queue ghosts the moment they see templar tech. The fact that ghosts don't need energy upgrade is pretty good to deal with that follow up.
Ghost buff did nothing. Even without energy upgrade ghost will have emp when he arrive to the protoss base. And 1 additional snipe per ghost mean nothing. It is the same useless buff as it was with 10% tank attack speed buff.
I even rechecked bombers scv pull allin with ghosts - he didn't do energy upgrade for this...
without upgrade ghost will be better in defence... but who will build ghosts for defence? don't know may be kim think that terran suppose tp build ghosts instead of 5bunkkers to defend blink allin?
What made blink-stalker all-ins very powerful? Ask anyone. It's the templar follow up. A protoss that failed a blink-stalker all-in can easily transition and have storms ready for the Terran counter-attack.
Of course, it depends on how badly the all-in fails. If the Protoss fails miserably and loses all his stalkers, then the transition to templar is a non-issue. But in most games, Protoss that fail the blink-stalker all-in (as in, getting repelled without losing too many stalkers) make that transition to templar - even following up with chargelot/archon or chargelot/archon/templar.
The follow up to templar is now less potent because the time it takes the Terran to make an effective ghost switch is now reduced by the duration of the moebius reactor.
Yes, it doesn't do much to buff the vaunted scv pull. Well, even then, extra emps is always fucking nice when the Protoss splits up templars. I don't see how you can't see that. EMP is a weak spell compared to storm, but it's still pretty nice.
Now bomber's scv pull allin with ghosts has extra emp for each ghost he makes. If he made 4 ghosts, he'll have 8 emps rather than 4 by the time his ghosts walk to the Protoss base. That gives more room for error.
TLDR, now Terrans can make 5 bunkers to hold blink-stalker and not be completely fucked by the templar switch. (I make seige tanks + bunkers, so I don't need that many but w/e)
ps. I'm not certain if it's enough of a buff to Terran yet. Blinkstalkers still are extremely strong, picking off my tanks and shit. But let's wait a bit before we make Terran OP. It's better for the game to balanced in gradual, measured tones, imo.
sorry to disappoint you, but there is no extra emp on the allin. ghost get an extra 25 energy now, but not extra 75. Instead of having 75-80 energy, when they reach the protoss base, they have now around 100. this is still far away from 2 emps. and the templar follow up after blink pressure.... yes it´s nice to safe 100/100 for the terran. But it´s not gamechanging at all. you have your ghosts 40seconds earlier for defence. For offensive purposes nothing changes again. So you will be able to stay alive towards the lategame more safely. Yeah, great, TvP lategame, that´s where you want to be as terran!
On February 08 2014 12:05 plogamer wrote: Instead, the most powerful templar follow-up after holding off blink stalker is nerfed with a buff to ghosts.
I think blink stalker all-ins have been nerfed indirectly. Terran can just drop a ghost academy after holding a blink all-in, and queue ghosts the moment they see templar tech. The fact that ghosts don't need energy upgrade is pretty good to deal with that follow up.
Ghost buff did nothing. Even without energy upgrade ghost will have emp when he arrive to the protoss base. And 1 additional snipe per ghost mean nothing. It is the same useless buff as it was with 10% tank attack speed buff.
I even rechecked bombers scv pull allin with ghosts - he didn't do energy upgrade for this...
without upgrade ghost will be better in defence... but who will build ghosts for defence? don't know may be kim think that terran suppose tp build ghosts instead of 5bunkkers to defend blink allin?
What made blink-stalker all-ins very powerful? Ask anyone. It's the templar follow up. A protoss that failed a blink-stalker all-in can easily transition and have storms ready for the Terran counter-attack.
Of course, it depends on how badly the all-in fails. If the Protoss fails miserably and loses all his stalkers, then the transition to templar is a non-issue. But in most games, Protoss that fail the blink-stalker all-in (as in, getting repelled without losing too many stalkers) make that transition to templar - even following up with chargelot/archon or chargelot/archon/templar.
The follow up to templar is now less potent because the time it takes the Terran to make an effective ghost switch is now reduced by the duration of the moebius reactor.
Yes, it doesn't do much to buff the vaunted scv pull. Well, even then, extra emps is always fucking nice when the Protoss splits up templars. I don't see how you can't see that. EMP is a weak spell compared to storm, but it's still pretty nice.
Now bomber's scv pull allin with ghosts has extra emp for each ghost he makes. If he made 4 ghosts, he'll have 8 emps rather than 4 by the time his ghosts walk to the Protoss base. That gives more room for error.
TLDR, now Terrans can make 5 bunkers to hold blink-stalker and not be completely fucked by the templar switch. (I make seige tanks + bunkers, so I don't need that many but w/e)
Pre-patch: Ghost spawns with 50 energy; 45 seconds are needed to get the EMP, which is done when you reach Protoss' base. Post-patch: Ghost spawns with 75 energy; 135 seconds (2 minuts 15) are needed to get a second EMP, so no, you won't have a second EMP for 3 Ghosts SCVs pulls. The patch has like zero effect on this strategy.
Likewise, you're still massively behind if you get mass Bunkers against a Templar transition. There is no 3 Ghosts timing you can use to immediately counter and win. That is why I suggested to lengthen the time it takes to get Storm, to increase the window of vulnerability and thus introduce some risk to 2-bases Blink into Storm instead of being a free attempt at winning the game into being ahead in most cases anyway.
I see I was mistaken about the moebius upgrade (since I so rarely used to get it doing Polt's style of marauder heavy army).
How about the cloak upgrade becoming immediately available? The templar switch will have next to no detection. It's 120 seconds, - maybe the next step can be to buff that upgrade.
The problem with lengthening storm upgrade is possibly the use of storm in PvZ. It could potentially open up timings for Z. Not that it would be bad considering how Z are getting trashed after the Daedulus Point fix.
On February 08 2014 20:02 S1eth wrote: Let's just say that your post is unreasonable. You would need 50 months to test 50 units to get any reasonably useful results.
I don't need 50 months to see that the Warhound, Tempest, and Oracle are horrible units, while the Widow Mine and Swarm Host have potential depending on how the numbers get tweaked. You seem to think it comes down to balance. It doesn't. Many of the units Blizzard designed for this game plain suck at allowing players to show off mechanical skill and multitasking ability.
And your claim that Blizzard tried "3 units" is just plain wrong. You only see one tiny snapshot of the development process. You have no idea of all the single-player-only units, or those that were cut from single player. The sentry alone has like 3 different cut versions that didn't make it into the game.
Plain wrong, is it?
Of the 7 new units that went into Beta test for HOTS, exactly two functioned the way Blizzard intended them to - Viper and Tempest. The Warhound didn't promote "mech" play, the WM was too bio-friendly, the Hellbat was too drop friendly, the Oracle was completely useless, the Swarm Host is a turtle unit instead of an aggression unit and is now facing a redesign. Again, a whopping 2/7 units worked the way Blizzard wanted them to. Now, whether the fault lies with poor unit design or inevitable emergent behavior, you have to admit that's a pretty shitty result.
Any normal person looks at that kind of statistic and says, "Gee whiz, if they're so bad at predicting how units will be used, maybe they shouldn't throw out all their scrapped units that we never saw, and should instead put them into the Beta for us to tinker with, because we might find cooler, better uses for them than Blizzard envisioned."
I just saw Inno vs Solar game 2. Inno went for mech, Solar tried to deny 3 base with roach push and failed completely. Then he went for mass muta and 15 SH.
Since then he made many mistakes losing mutas left and right. But once the game went longer, and Inno had to defend several bases Solar could fly with mutas all around the map sniping vikings turrets etc.
How the Fuck terran can defend against it. Turrets in late game are joke, left 2 Thors at each base?, does not matter becaue they will be sniped before Vikings arrive.
Inno deserved to win that game but still lost. This is fucking rediculous.
Yes I know, Solars is doing fine recently among Soulkey, Roro etc. Zest is doing fine among Trap, Rain, Parting, Dear, hero... Inno is in a slump, Flash is in code B, Maru lost two last games in proleague so is in a slump probably too, Supernova got owned, Teaja didn't reach ro16 in Asus ROG, TY lost to Parting, MMA lost 2:0 to Paranoid (seriously?)
Look, Welmu beat 3:0 Life recently, Teaja lost to another nonkorean Zerg, MMA lost to Paranoid, now tell me when was the last time nonkorean Terran won a match against code S Zerg or Protos???
On February 09 2014 08:16 TW wrote: Yes I know, Solars is doing fine recently among Soulkey, Roro etc. Zest is doing fine among Trap, Rain, Parting, Dear, hero... Inno is in a slump, Flash is in code B, Maru lost two last games in proleague so is in a slump probably too, Supernova got owned, Teaja didn't reach ro16 in Asus ROG, TY lost to Parting, MMA lost 2:0 to Paranoid (seriously?)
Look, Welmu beat 3:0 Life recently, Teaja lost to another nonkorean Zerg, MMA lost to Paranoid, now tell me when was the last time nonkorean Terran won a match against code S Zerg or Protos???
On February 09 2014 08:16 TW wrote: Yes I know, Solars is doing fine recently among Soulkey, Roro etc. Zest is doing fine among Trap, Rain, Parting, Dear, hero... Inno is in a slump, Flash is in code B, Maru lost two last games in proleague so is in a slump probably too, Supernova got owned, Teaja didn't reach ro16 in Asus ROG, TY lost to Parting, MMA lost 2:0 to Paranoid (seriously?)
Look, Welmu beat 3:0 Life recently, Teaja lost to another nonkorean Zerg, MMA lost to Paranoid, now tell me when was the last time nonkorean Terran won a match against code S Zerg or Protos???
Has that ever happend? :D
Talking foreign players btw: Bly 2 - 0 Dear WTF?
Life vs Sjow. Other than that, I think you'd have to go back to early WoL.
On February 09 2014 08:16 TW wrote: Yes I know, Solars is doing fine recently among Soulkey, Roro etc. Zest is doing fine among Trap, Rain, Parting, Dear, hero... Inno is in a slump, Flash is in code B, Maru lost two last games in proleague so is in a slump probably too, Supernova got owned, Teaja didn't reach ro16 in Asus ROG, TY lost to Parting, MMA lost 2:0 to Paranoid (seriously?)
Look, Welmu beat 3:0 Life recently, Teaja lost to another nonkorean Zerg, MMA lost to Paranoid, now tell me when was the last time nonkorean Terran won a match against code S Zerg or Protos???
Has that ever happend? :D
Talking foreign players btw: Bly 2 - 0 Dear WTF?
There are tons of non-Korean Zergs or Protoss regularly "upsetting" stronger Korean opponents (especially when they're Terran).
I watched the innovation vs soulkey mech games and I thought that innovation's play was very rough, with a lot of positional mistakes. And I know it's very difficult to constantly make the correct decisions, and I'm not saying mutas are fine, but I think that if you give it three more months of practice that these games might end up differently. I feel like this style is new-ish enough players might not be well versed in it yet. I couldn't watch the vs solar games though, what was bad about tem?
On February 09 2014 08:16 TW wrote: Yes I know, Solars is doing fine recently among Soulkey, Roro etc. Zest is doing fine among Trap, Rain, Parting, Dear, hero... Inno is in a slump, Flash is in code B, Maru lost two last games in proleague so is in a slump probably too, Supernova got owned, Teaja didn't reach ro16 in Asus ROG, TY lost to Parting, MMA lost 2:0 to Paranoid (seriously?)
Look, Welmu beat 3:0 Life recently, Teaja lost to another nonkorean Zerg, MMA lost to Paranoid, now tell me when was the last time nonkorean Terran won a match against code S Zerg or Protos???
It just confirms What everybody knows. Good nonkorean Zerg or Protos can win against top Korean players, but top nonkorean Terrans cannot.
I know they cannot buff T too much cause 3 top Koreans will dominate the scene, but why those few other Terrans have to be in a such disadvantage?
If the races are so poorly designed that making the "average" Terran as good as the "average" Protoss makes the top Terrans dominate everyone else because Terran units reward mechanical skill more than units of other races, then fix the god damn units that don't reward mechanical skill.
How is this even arguable? This gets my knickers so bunched it's not even funny.
HOTS TvZ proved for a fact that it is possible to have asymmetric races that take roughly the same amount of mechanical skill to play. Settling for less is freaking lazy.
I think the first step must be for PvX matchups to make them fun, not balanced. Absolutely horrible to play TvP right now, and even ZvP is just boring. I hope they'll start to redesign and scrap those bad units like Colossus and Oracle and add some fun units instead. :/
Wow, just saw the tail end of Grubby playing vs a hardcore SH turtle. 1 hour 20 mins, genuinely never seen Grubby so frustrated, I wasn't even sure he had the capacity to feel such emotions
On February 09 2014 09:05 Breach_hu wrote: I think the first step must be for PvX matchups to make them fun, not balanced. Absolutely horrible to play TvP right now, and even ZvP is just boring. I hope they'll start to redesign and scrap those bad units like Colossus and Oracle and add some fun units instead. :/
Oracle was specifically added to give protoss a fun unit though.
On February 09 2014 09:19 Wombat_NI wrote: Wow, just saw the tail end of Grubby playing vs a hardcore SH turtle. 1 hour 20 mins, genuinely never seen Grubby so frustrated, I wasn't even sure he had the capacity to feel such emotions
You know something is terribly wrong if you manage to get Grubby rage. Lets hope we never reach that stage
Damn, I can hardly believe it, any VoDs of it? Grubby strikes me as one of the most emotionally stable people, it must take a lot to make him break down.
On February 09 2014 19:12 Destructicon wrote: Damn, I can hardly believe it, any VoDs of it? Grubby strikes me as one of the most emotionally stable people, it must take a lot to make him break down.
Grubby had the reputation of being one of the most bm players in wc3.
On February 09 2014 09:19 Wombat_NI wrote: Wow, just saw the tail end of Grubby playing vs a hardcore SH turtle. 1 hour 20 mins, genuinely never seen Grubby so frustrated, I wasn't even sure he had the capacity to feel such emotions
You know something is terribly wrong if you manage to get Grubby rage. Lets hope we never reach that stage
Grubby didnt even rage during the BL-Infestor days, so it must be quite something if SH can have that effect on him.
On February 09 2014 19:12 Destructicon wrote: Damn, I can hardly believe it, any VoDs of it? Grubby strikes me as one of the most emotionally stable people, it must take a lot to make him break down.
Grubby had the reputation of being one of the most bm players in wc3.
To put that in perspective, he played that game against super idiots (who were reknowned for that). He didn't lash out to random people or something like that.
On February 09 2014 08:16 TW wrote: Yes I know, Solars is doing fine recently among Soulkey, Roro etc. Zest is doing fine among Trap, Rain, Parting, Dear, hero... Inno is in a slump, Flash is in code B, Maru lost two last games in proleague so is in a slump probably too, Supernova got owned, Teaja didn't reach ro16 in Asus ROG, TY lost to Parting, MMA lost 2:0 to Paranoid (seriously?)
Look, Welmu beat 3:0 Life recently, Teaja lost to another nonkorean Zerg, MMA lost to Paranoid, now tell me when was the last time nonkorean Terran won a match against code S Zerg or Protos???
Maru lost two games in proleague so is probably in a slump too.
On February 09 2014 08:16 TW wrote: Yes I know, Solars is doing fine recently among Soulkey, Roro etc. Zest is doing fine among Trap, Rain, Parting, Dear, hero... Inno is in a slump, Flash is in code B, Maru lost two last games in proleague so is in a slump probably too, Supernova got owned, Teaja didn't reach ro16 in Asus ROG, TY lost to Parting, MMA lost 2:0 to Paranoid (seriously?)
Look, Welmu beat 3:0 Life recently, Teaja lost to another nonkorean Zerg, MMA lost to Paranoid, now tell me when was the last time nonkorean Terran won a match against code S Zerg or Protos???
Maru lost two games in proleague so is probably in a slump too.
2 games against Soulkey, in his worst MU?
In a slump?
2 games?
You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Fairly sure he was sarcastic about the "but he's in a slump!" argument people in denial use when a race is doing bad (and thus its players have worse results).
So right now there is no Terran on earth that can beat Soulkey or Parting. Do you think that this is a healthy state? Dont be rediculous.
For Maru u can expect to take games from best Z and P.
And the latest patch reminds me sth. After several months of Brooflord Infestor era, DK stated that there is no problem at the highest level of play, but to pretend he cared he decreased fungal range by one point.
And as expected it had same impact as the latest patch == 0 impact!
So right now there is no Terran on earth that can beat Soulkey or Parting. Do you think that this is a healthy state? Dont be rediculous.
For Maru u can expect to take games from best Z and P.
And the latest patch reminds me sth. After several months of Brooflord Infestor era, DK stated that there is no problem at the highest level of play, but to pretend he cared he decreased fungal range by one point.
And as expected it had same impact as the latest patch == 0 impact!
maru not beating parting or soulkey recently does not mean he is in a slump. you can still expect him to take games from best Z and P. it does not mean he will 100% take games of them.
last loss in ZvT for soulkey : 14-01-12 vs TY (so there is a Terran who can beat Soulkey)
as for Partling: 13-12-16 vs Maru
also, there were lots of nerf to infestors, it wasn't just "decreased fungal range by one point".
At least post your opinion in a less dramatic way and correct information.
So right now there is no Terran on earth that can beat Soulkey or Parting. Do you think that this is a healthy state? Dont be rediculous.
For Maru u can expect to take games from best Z and P.
And the latest patch reminds me sth. After several months of Brooflord Infestor era, DK stated that there is no problem at the highest level of play, but to pretend he cared he decreased fungal range by one point.
And as expected it had same impact as the latest patch == 0 impact!
maru not beating parting or soulkey recently does not mean he is in a slump. you can still expect him to take games from best Z and P. it does not mean he will 100% take games of them.
last loss in ZvT for soulkey : 14-01-12 vs TY (so there is a Terran who can beat Soulkey)
as for Partling: 13-12-16 vs Maru
also, there were lots of nerf to infestors, it wasn't just "decreased fungal range by one point".
At least post your opinion in a less dramatic way and correct information.
a few losses doesnt mean maru is in slump.
Soulkey lost an unscouted 11/11 against TY... Quoting his recent loss vs Cure would be more relevant.
So right now there is no Terran on earth that can beat Soulkey or Parting. Do you think that this is a healthy state? Dont be rediculous.
For Maru u can expect to take games from best Z and P.
And the latest patch reminds me sth. After several months of Brooflord Infestor era, DK stated that there is no problem at the highest level of play, but to pretend he cared he decreased fungal range by one point.
And as expected it had same impact as the latest patch == 0 impact!
Dude I created the mad marine fanclub. I know tvz tvp is not well balanced atm my sarcasm-o-meter failed, so sorry for calling you out!
It just confirms What everybody knows. Good nonkorean Zerg or Protos can win against top Korean players, but top nonkorean Terrans cannot.
I know they cannot buff T too much cause 3 top Koreans will dominate the scene, but why those few other Terrans have to be in a such disadvantage?
If the races are so poorly designed that making the "average" Terran as good as the "average" Protoss makes the top Terrans dominate everyone else because Terran units reward mechanical skill more than units of other races, then fix the god damn units that don't reward mechanical skill.
How is this even arguable? This gets my knickers so bunched it's not even funny.
HOTS TvZ proved for a fact that it is possible to have asymmetric races that take roughly the same amount of mechanical skill to play. Settling for less is freaking lazy.
a lot of crap in this thread but that last part is actually interesting. This is why I love TvZ as a matchup both to watch and to play (especially just before the WM-nerf was released, when top zergs actually started to get some wins based on mechanical play and outmultitasking) and its ridiculous how little mechanics and multitasking (in comparison) seem to matter in PvZ.
I just find it interesting that a lot of Protoss players here are pointing out pro terran's mistake when Ts lose, like Maru's game today. You know what, I could have done the same thing during the 1-1-1 era, no Protoss was playing 'perfectly' and lost. Same case for pre-WM nerf, if the Zerg was playing 'perfect', WM shouldn't be a problem.
That is the issue with balance right now, the terran's margin of error is razor thin while the Protoss can lose his MSC and still win.
Ok sorry, maybe I was too angry. I just miss good old days before WM patch, when TvZs where so amazing.
Early roach pushes, roach hydra plays, standard ling bane mutas and so on. Zergs were really reaching their limits and thus we were getting great games. Just recall Soulkey - Inno finals, Flash - DRG etc.
Right now? Every Zerg goes standard ling bane muta cause its so effective, and ends most likely when Z has critical number of Mutas.
Think what you want, but WM nerf killed this matchup.
Mutas being ridiculous was only held in check because WMs were pretty potent, in ZvP the Phoenix fulfils that anti-muta role imo TOO well, but without it there's very little to deal with a good Muta user.
TLDR - Mutas with both that speed and the regen seems a bit much to me
On February 10 2014 02:39 vthree wrote: I just find it interesting that a lot of Protoss players here are pointing out pro terran's mistake when Ts lose, like Maru's game today. You know what, I could have done the same thing during the 1-1-1 era, no Protoss was playing 'perfectly' and lost. Same case for pre-WM nerf, if the Zerg was playing 'perfect', WM shouldn't be a problem.
Just because you're pointing out Maru's mistakes doesn't mean you think PvT is balanced...
On February 10 2014 06:53 TW wrote: Stardust - Revenge game 3 Scouted blink all in, 4 bunkers, 3 barracks, no greed.
Blink into the main, 1 bunker down immediately, 2 timewarps (yes it is still possible after the patch) into GG.
And again DK said +25 for timewarp will solve the problem. The more I see games after the patch, the more i am sure it solves nothing.
It could not solve anything since most of the time the first Time Warp already results in game-ending damage because the MSC provides perfect intel about Terran's defence, so Protoss can just Blink wherever you are not and cast Time Warp to intercept your bio which comes crawling in a terrible formation. Fortunately, since people are yelling "reduce MSC sight range" for weeks, we may get something in the next few months; probably a reduction from 14 to 13 for maximum trolling.
On February 10 2014 04:45 Wombat_NI wrote: Mutas being ridiculous was only held in check because WMs were pretty potent, in ZvP the Phoenix fulfils that anti-muta role imo TOO well, but without it there's very little to deal with a good Muta user.
TLDR - Mutas with both that speed and the regen seems a bit much to me
Mutas are too binary in PvZ. Either protoss has no phoenix and can't get them in time and therefore dies automatically (nothing other than phoenix can deal with properly controlled mtuas at all), or the protoss has phoenix and can defend them. I won't say it's too well because muta corrupter if played well can be outrageously hard to deal with, and once infestors are on the field phoenix can't really engage the mutas except on defense and only if you've planned ahead.
On February 10 2014 04:45 Wombat_NI wrote: Mutas being ridiculous was only held in check because WMs were pretty potent, in ZvP the Phoenix fulfils that anti-muta role imo TOO well, but without it there's very little to deal with a good Muta user.
TLDR - Mutas with both that speed and the regen seems a bit much to me
Mutas are too binary in PvZ. Either protoss has no phoenix and can't get them in time and therefore dies automatically (nothing other than phoenix can deal with properly controlled mtuas at all), or the protoss has phoenix and can defend them. I won't say it's too well because muta corrupter if played well can be outrageously hard to deal with, and once infestors are on the field phoenix can't really engage the mutas except on defense and only if you've planned ahead.
Mutas for a long time have really struck me as more of a snowball unit than a harassment option. Small numbers of mutalisks aren't particularly effective in a harass capacity, but if a game goes a certain way you have a huge ball of them that is too mobile and regens for anything other than a turtle + your whole army or go for a base trade to be an option in PvZ.
It used to be hard as hell, but a few storms + stalkers could at least defend them from the ground.
On February 10 2014 04:45 Wombat_NI wrote: Mutas being ridiculous was only held in check because WMs were pretty potent, in ZvP the Phoenix fulfils that anti-muta role imo TOO well, but without it there's very little to deal with a good Muta user.
TLDR - Mutas with both that speed and the regen seems a bit much to me
Mutas are too binary in PvZ. Either protoss has no phoenix and can't get them in time and therefore dies automatically (nothing other than phoenix can deal with properly controlled mtuas at all), or the protoss has phoenix and can defend them. I won't say it's too well because muta corrupter if played well can be outrageously hard to deal with, and once infestors are on the field phoenix can't really engage the mutas except on defense and only if you've planned ahead.
Mutas for a long time have really struck me as more of a snowball unit than a harassment option. Small numbers of mutalisks aren't particularly effective in a harass capacity, but if a game goes a certain way you have a huge ball of them that is too mobile and regens for anything other than a turtle + your whole army or go for a base trade to be an option in PvZ.
It used to be hard as hell, but a few storms + stalkers could at least defend them from the ground.
Yeah, can't do that anymore because of the regen. Storm was the tool protoss had against them, since even though snowballed mutas would kill infinite stalkers, 2-3 storms and the mutas would all just get one-shot. Now if you storm the mutas, they just kill the templar, get 2-3 buildings or all the probes and zoom out with their speed buff before stalkers can get there, and 30 seconds later they're at full hp and the storms were meaningless.
Yeah, can't do that anymore because of the regen. Storm was the tool protoss had against them, since even though snowballed mutas would kill infinite stalkers, 2-3 storms and the mutas would all just get one-shot. Now if you storm the mutas, they just kill the templar, get 2-3 buildings or all the probes and zoom out with their speed buff before stalkers can get there, and 30 seconds later they're at full hp and the storms were meaningless.
Same in TvZ. Mutas get into the main, natural wherever there is no army atm, kill like 4 turrets some addons, fly away, regen and the circle continous. Once Zerg has good micro, it is not likely he loses a single muta.
On February 10 2014 02:39 vthree wrote: I just find it interesting that a lot of Protoss players here are pointing out pro terran's mistake when Ts lose, like Maru's game today. You know what, I could have done the same thing during the 1-1-1 era, no Protoss was playing 'perfectly' and lost. Same case for pre-WM nerf, if the Zerg was playing 'perfect', WM shouldn't be a problem.
Just because you're pointing out Maru's mistakes doesn't mean you think PvT is balanced...
When the posters claims blink all-in is not an issue and the 'better' player won, yeah, I think they make it seem the poster thinks the game is balance.
On February 10 2014 02:39 vthree wrote: I just find it interesting that a lot of Protoss players here are pointing out pro terran's mistake when Ts lose, like Maru's game today. You know what, I could have done the same thing during the 1-1-1 era, no Protoss was playing 'perfectly' and lost. Same case for pre-WM nerf, if the Zerg was playing 'perfect', WM shouldn't be a problem.
Just because you're pointing out Maru's mistakes doesn't mean you think PvT is balanced...
When the posters claims blink all-in is not an issue and the 'better' player won, yeah, I think they make it seem the poster thinks the game is balance.
I didn't take it as "blink all-in is not an issue". I took it as this isn't a standard situation and this isn't a standard game, just shut up already (a feeling I can totally relate to.)
While we're at it, let's not go into who's the better player. This has been done before.
On February 10 2014 02:39 vthree wrote: I just find it interesting that a lot of Protoss players here are pointing out pro terran's mistake when Ts lose, like Maru's game today. You know what, I could have done the same thing during the 1-1-1 era, no Protoss was playing 'perfectly' and lost. Same case for pre-WM nerf, if the Zerg was playing 'perfect', WM shouldn't be a problem.
Just because you're pointing out Maru's mistakes doesn't mean you think PvT is balanced...
When the posters claims blink all-in is not an issue and the 'better' player won, yeah, I think they make it seem the poster thinks the game is balance.
I didn't take it as "blink all-in is not an issue". I took it as this isn't a standard situation and this isn't a standard game, just shut up already (a feeling I can totally relate to.)
While we're at it, let's not go into who's the better player. This has been done before.
Don't you understand? If someone kept pointing out what exactly the Protoss needed to do 100% against 1/1/1 back in the day, wouldn't you feel that was a indicative of this person's view on the balance?
Balancing their own post with Maru's mistake as well as the opponent players' mistakes would make it appear more neutral.
The current state of TvP re the Blink allin is somewhat reminiscent of the 1/1/1 in a way. It was holdable if you blind-countered it, and did pretty much 9/10 of the right moves to counter it. Equally, the Terran could always do something else and then you were often buggered
It's a vicious circle too. When a race struggles in a matchup, like T is in TvP, players tend to start taking more and more risks, leaving room for more potential mistakes, on top of having to fight the up-hill battle vs the stronger race. When this morning Maru attempted that 4 reaper build and lost with it, Protoss in the LR threads were all smug and shit, being like "Yeah, 4 reapers, haha Maru doesn't know how to play, slump slump blahblahblah". I don't even know what Maru wanted to accomplish with this unusual build, but be sure of that, Maru tried to mix things up because he knew a straight-up game is hard to play against someone like PartinG. That didn't work, he looked "bad" to those who think the game is balanced and that's a bit sad.
The thing is, every time you browse these threads you see stuff like "protoss will tell us that we should do [x]"... And I just feel it's not really the case. Most protosses are agreeing that blink all-in is OP. There isn't really a debate about it, the debates that we have are basically the same regular terrans saying basically the same thing. So whenever I see posts like this, "oh you're pointing out mistakes, that must mean you actually think TvP is superfine" or whatever, it just feels like someone who is disappointed that he doesn't have anyone to argue with, and is trying to create opposition.
I don't know about the balance threads specifically, but the LR threads are funny that way. When an imbalanced matchup gets played, you're obviously not allowed to talk about the imbalance (TL rules), and you can't really talk about how amazing the blink allinner played either (because nobody thinks it's a cool build, not even Protosses). You kinda have to talk about something though, so that might as well be the loser's mistakes.
LR rule to keep in mind: the loser is always wrong. Not a perfect rule, but not a bad one either.
It just confirms What everybody knows. Good nonkorean Zerg or Protos can win against top Korean players, but top nonkorean Terrans cannot.
I know they cannot buff T too much cause 3 top Koreans will dominate the scene, but why those few other Terrans have to be in a such disadvantage?
If the races are so poorly designed that making the "average" Terran as good as the "average" Protoss makes the top Terrans dominate everyone else because Terran units reward mechanical skill more than units of other races, then fix the god damn units that don't reward mechanical skill.
How is this even arguable? This gets my knickers so bunched it's not even funny.
HOTS TvZ proved for a fact that it is possible to have asymmetric races that take roughly the same amount of mechanical skill to play. Settling for less is freaking lazy.
yes this seems obvious, the ongoing travesty of the game is the laziness of the design. even the casual viewer can see the difference in skill requirement and is complaining when certain early game all-ins happen or certain late game compositions are reached.
I have no idea how blizzard thought that last patch was enough. The MSC and swarm host units need to be redesigned. There is no way the MSC should be such an awesome offensive unit (time warp making micro impossible for opponent and vision range making blink Imba vs terran) while possessing the best defensive spell (PO) in the game. Swarm hosts vs mech and swarm hosts vs protoss just makes for some of the worst viewing experience possible.
If I was in the balance team and I saw how this stuff was creating awful games + imbalances I would think it would be a high priority to find a fix.
I agree with the people saying Maps are to be blamed, not Blink All-ins. I'll even go ahead and say look at Habitation Station. Blink is viable on the map, you can blink from the gold into the main, yet you can just bunch all 12 stalkers together and blink them all together, you have to do it ~3-4 at a time or else they won't make it. The natural is also small enough so there isn't tons of surface area to blink up, pick off a couple bunkers / time warp a specific area so terran can't reinforce fast enough.
We still see Blink on the map occasionally but it's usually used as more of a harassment tool instead of just a pure all-in tool, which is interesting. Whether it's harass the gold, blinking from the 3rd back to the high ground in the middle, or harassing from behind the regular 4th, it makes it interesting.
If say, Habitation Station was the only map in the entire map pool, Blink would never be a problem. Unfortunately the majority of the map pool has tons of blink-able surface area in the mains and naturals that that specific strategy is almost too much to defend properly.
I love how so many people talk about how bad StarCraft 2 is when its longevity in popularity already exceeds any RTS I can think of...by the 5th ladder season in StarCraft the game was on its last throes outside of Korea. By Blizzard's first world championship (after using ladder season 4 and 5 as qualifiers) most of the good non Koreans were already retired or playing very little. Although we can argue that the golden years of Broodwar were starting about then it was pretty much in Korea alone. The big competition at that point in time was Quake and EverQuest as far as playing.
StarCraft 2 has had a much longer run of high involvement, a gigantic scene, and has had much tougher competition in the computer gaming scene (LoL, DOTA, Kespa staying BW, WoW) and is still going along..in a genre that overall just isn't as popular. Back around 98 to 2001 there were RTS clones coming out left and right as well as MMOG clones of course.
If I purchased a game I would love to get the time for money spent value that I got out of StarCraft 2 and if I ran the company making it I would love to get half the success that StarCraft 2 has gotten.
Its amazing what people qualify as a good game, success, or balance...especially in a game that is still evolving as there are going to be more patches, an expansion, and more progression in the game itself.
On February 10 2014 13:17 Eliezar wrote: I love how so many people talk about how bad StarCraft 2 is when its longevity in popularity already exceeds any RTS I can think of...by the 5th ladder season in StarCraft the game was on its last throes outside of Korea. By Blizzard's first world championship (after using ladder season 4 and 5 as qualifiers) most of the good non Koreans were already retired or playing very little. Although we can argue that the golden years of Broodwar were starting about then it was pretty much in Korea alone. The big competition at that point in time was Quake and EverQuest as far as playing.
StarCraft 2 has had a much longer run of high involvement, a gigantic scene, and has had much tougher competition in the computer gaming scene (LoL, DOTA, Kespa staying BW, WoW) and is still going along..in a genre that overall just isn't as popular. Back around 98 to 2001 there were RTS clones coming out left and right as well as MMOG clones of course.
If I purchased a game I would love to get the time for money spent value that I got out of StarCraft 2 and if I ran the company making it I would love to get half the success that StarCraft 2 has gotten.
Its amazing what people qualify as a good game, success, or balance...especially in a game that is still evolving as there are going to be more patches, an expansion, and more progression in the game itself.
This "global" presence that people are thinking about still have far less viewers than BW viewership in the Kespa days.
The problem is that SC2 have already passed its "peak" and is steadily declining. We are attempting to find ways in order to make it afloat.
On February 10 2014 11:47 ZenithM wrote: It's a vicious circle too. When a race struggles in a matchup, like T is in TvP, players tend to start taking more and more risks, leaving room for more potential mistakes, on top of having to fight the up-hill battle vs the stronger race. When this morning Maru attempted that 4 reaper build and lost with it, Protoss in the LR threads were all smug and shit, being like "Yeah, 4 reapers, haha Maru doesn't know how to play, slump slump blahblahblah". I don't even know what Maru wanted to accomplish with this unusual build, but be sure of that, Maru tried to mix things up because he knew a straight-up game is hard to play against someone like PartinG. That didn't work, he looked "bad" to those who think the game is balanced and that's a bit sad.
4 reapers into 3 rax stim is a strong build against 2-bases Blink. PartinG was just rewarded by accident for blindly poking with his MSC and delaying the second and third rax.
On February 10 2014 13:13 SidianTheBard wrote: I agree with the people saying Maps are to be blamed, not Blink All-ins. I'll even go ahead and say look at Habitation Station. Blink is viable on the map, you can blink from the gold into the main, yet you can just bunch all 12 stalkers together and blink them all together, you have to do it ~3-4 at a time or else they won't make it. The natural is also small enough so there isn't tons of surface area to blink up, pick off a couple bunkers / time warp a specific area so terran can't reinforce fast enough.
We still see Blink on the map occasionally but it's usually used as more of a harassment tool instead of just a pure all-in tool, which is interesting. Whether it's harass the gold, blinking from the 3rd back to the high ground in the middle, or harassing from behind the regular 4th, it makes it interesting.
If say, Habitation Station was the only map in the entire map pool, Blink would never be a problem. Unfortunately the majority of the map pool has tons of blink-able surface area in the mains and naturals that that specific strategy is almost too much to defend properly.
There is more to blame than maps since the same ones with the WoL blink all-in would be perfectly manageable. Besides, Protoss already dictates so many restrictions on map making with Forcefields that adding a "no/weak Blink" clause would result in even less choices than now. Why would you limit even more the numbers of features a competitive map can have when a simple MSC nerf would do?
On February 10 2014 13:17 Eliezar wrote: I love how so many people talk about how bad StarCraft 2 is when its longevity in popularity already exceeds any RTS I can think of...
That's funny, I can think of this one other RTS that was kind of a big deal for almost 15 years, and still is in some ways.
On February 10 2014 13:17 Eliezar wrote: I love how so many people talk about how bad StarCraft 2 is when its longevity in popularity already exceeds any RTS I can think of...
That's funny, I can think of this one other RTS that was kind of a big deal for almost 15 years, and still is in some ways.
On February 10 2014 13:17 Eliezar wrote: I love how so many people talk about how bad StarCraft 2 is when its longevity in popularity already exceeds any RTS I can think of...
That's funny, I can think of this one other RTS that was kind of a big deal for almost 15 years, and still is in some ways.
On February 10 2014 13:17 Eliezar wrote: I love how so many people talk about how bad StarCraft 2 is when its longevity in popularity already exceeds any RTS I can think of...
That's funny, I can think of this one other RTS that was kind of a big deal for almost 15 years, and still is in some ways.
And SC2 is the successor of the RTS. . .
No, it's not. I may have the same name, the same brand, the same iconography, but it is not a successor of BW. It has not earned that distinction. It is a game made by completely different people in a company that has changed into something not even remotely close to what it was in 1998.
Trying go piggyback on BW's success and claim it somehow legitimizes SC2 is absurd. A sequel is not good just because the original was, it has to stand on its own merit.
That one was only really popular in 1 country.
That's strange, I remember tons of my friends and people in my school playing it. I remember lans and late night games for years. It was acclaimed as the best RTS ever made world wide, not just in Korea. The fact that Korea had a far superior competitive scene compared to the rest of the world is another matter.
On February 10 2014 13:17 Eliezar wrote: I love how so many people talk about how bad StarCraft 2 is when its longevity in popularity already exceeds any RTS I can think of...
That's funny, I can think of this one other RTS that was kind of a big deal for almost 15 years, and still is in some ways.
And SC2 is the successor of the RTS. . .
No, it's not. I may have the same name, the same brand, the same iconography, but it is not a successor of BW. It has not earned that distinction. It is a game made by completely different people in a company that has changed into something not even remotely close to what it was in 1998.
Trying go piggyback on BW's success and claim it somehow legitimizes SC2 is absurd. A sequel is not good just because the original was, it has to stand on its own merit.
Which is why I am very happy that SC2 managed to not only stand on its own but surpass the original in a way that makes it in my view the greatest RTS of all time.
On February 10 2014 13:17 Eliezar wrote: I love how so many people talk about how bad StarCraft 2 is when its longevity in popularity already exceeds any RTS I can think of...
That's funny, I can think of this one other RTS that was kind of a big deal for almost 15 years, and still is in some ways.
And SC2 is the successor of the RTS. . .
No, it's not. I may have the same name, the same brand, the same iconography, but it is not a successor of BW. It has not earned that distinction. It is a game made by completely different people in a company that has changed into something not even remotely close to what it was in 1998.
Trying go piggyback on BW's success and claim it somehow legitimizes SC2 is absurd. A sequel is not good just because the original was, it has to stand on its own merit.
Which is why I am very happy that SC2 managed to not only stand on its own but surpass the original in a way that makes it in my view the greatest RTS of all time.
So why is the Korean scene imploding? Why is it that blizzard has to supply continuous life support in the form of WCS, basically an artificial breathing cash infusion. Why is anything we ever read about retirements and teams disbanding? Why are the forums littered with people unhappy about asinine gameplay? Why do sponsors pull out and go for Dota and LoL instead? Why do we have retarded shit like SH turtle, 3 base deathball turtles, fuck all for social interaction? Why do pro players constantly complain about aspects of the game, from every race and level?
You can only stick your head in the sand for so long, sooner or later the real world comes knocking.
On February 10 2014 13:17 Eliezar wrote: I love how so many people talk about how bad StarCraft 2 is when its longevity in popularity already exceeds any RTS I can think of...
That's funny, I can think of this one other RTS that was kind of a big deal for almost 15 years, and still is in some ways.
And SC2 is the successor of the RTS. . .
No, it's not. I may have the same name, the same brand, the same iconography, but it is not a successor of BW. It has not earned that distinction. It is a game made by completely different people in a company that has changed into something not even remotely close to what it was in 1998.
Trying go piggyback on BW's success and claim it somehow legitimizes SC2 is absurd. A sequel is not good just because the original was, it has to stand on its own merit.
Which is why I am very happy that SC2 managed to not only stand on its own but surpass the original in a way that makes it in my view the greatest RTS of all time.
So why is the Korean scene imploding? Why is it that blizzard has to supply continuous life support in the form of WCS, basically an artificial breathing ash infusion. Why is anything we ever read about retirements and teams disbanding? Why are the forums littered with people unhappy about asinine gameplay? Why do sponsors pull out and go for Dota and LoL instead? Why do we have retarded shit like SH turtle, 3 base deathball turtles, fuck all for social interaction? Why do pro players constantly complain about aspects of the game, from every race and level?
You can only stick your head in the sand for so long, sooner or later the real world comes knocking.
1. Teams have been disbanding and reforming for 10 years so that in now way surprised me 2. When you add 90+ pros to an already established and full scene you can expect a ton of retirements 3. Forums have always and will always draw the unhappy people in a game. Go look at any AAA games forums and you will see people whining about it even if it was considered one of the best games of the year 4. I would say the much simpler gameplay combined with a much better team dynamic (ya I know we have teams in sc2 and in BW but they were largely individual games) makes it a much easier game to pickup and much easier game to watch and enjoy 5. I could spend well over an hour talking about all of the things that were annoying in BW outside of the controls but in the end I also really liked that game as well so the frustrations did not overcome that experience so I wont. 6. The popular games of LoL and Dota also fairly constantly have top players complaining about something or other so it isn't really unique to SC2 so I wonder if its more of a symptom of modern gaming combined with increased player freedom to speak out. 7. Most important point though is that while I respect the opinions of others my opinion is my opinion and if I like something I like it and I don't need it justified by what others like.
On February 10 2014 13:17 Eliezar wrote: I love how so many people talk about how bad StarCraft 2 is when its longevity in popularity already exceeds any RTS I can think of...
That's funny, I can think of this one other RTS that was kind of a big deal for almost 15 years, and still is in some ways.
That one was only really popular in 1 country.
Well alone in germany we had an active amateur clan league, filled with more than 100 clans when I played BW. (which was between 2001 and 2006 - so much longer after the release of the addon than we are now in SC2) In SC2 the competetive amateur scene is very close to nonexistant. And the number of non korean pro gamers is decreasing rapidly. BW was pretty lively around the globe. We had no pro scene out of korea, but the game was alive, way more than SC2 is right now!
On February 10 2014 13:17 Eliezar wrote: I love how so many people talk about how bad StarCraft 2 is when its longevity in popularity already exceeds any RTS I can think of...
That's funny, I can think of this one other RTS that was kind of a big deal for almost 15 years, and still is in some ways.
If you are saying that Broodwar was a big deal for 15 years then I don't know what to say. It was almost nonexistent in America by the time there was a Korean pro scene.
Do you even know who sponsored and sent Maynard, Pillars, Grrrr... and Thor to go over to Korea? Did you even know that so many of the top players had retired and moved on long before that was even available.
Broodwar had a very small cult following for the vast majority of those 15 years (outside of Korea). StarCraft 2 has had insanely more tournaments and audiences and a real scene.
I traveled to and played in tournaments when Broodwar did have a vibrant North American player base. I played in PGL and i2e2 and did the prestreaming version of tastosis
I wish StarCraft had half the scene that StarCraft 2 has had. There was a massive North American fan base with very few other games competing for attention, but no way to package the games to people. I remember the first VODs coming out and how amazing it was to see what players were actually doing (outside of obsing in games). There were fun rivalries (Canada vs US, Bnet vs Kali, Soso vs Grrrr) and the game was changing way more than StarCraft 2 has (can you imagine if they reduced banshee and voidray damage to about 40% of current in a patch? Did that in StarCraft)
But Broodwar is more of the old ex girlfriend that you broke up with and later forget why you broke up and just remember what was good about her. No scene, very annoying battle.net (disconnects, sometimes two individuals couldn't be int eh same game), very annoying UI, very tedious gameplay, game was often played on completely imbalanced maps with races that were out of balance...
Broodwar was a great game, with a great scene, with technical limitations and no money or events to push the culture. I still have my silly i2e2 vests, PGL mousepad, and picture of me holding a big check somewhere. I really loved the game. But saying it was huge like StarCraft 2 has been huge...just doesn't stand up to reality.
EPT
. 
). 
!!!
, next time I'll add a disclaimer for all you western people.
