|
On November 08 2014 23:18 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 23:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 08 2014 22:54 Hider wrote:
I was mostly refering to the fact that 2 Cyclones shared about 70 kills between them before Terran ended the game by showing Battlecruisers. I do agree with you that the Hellion+Cyclone (theocraftically) seems unstoppable.
Units that can kite infinitely without taking any damage in a typical situation is never gonna work out. The range on the Cyclone is simply way too high vs Roaches. Also, give zerg some new stuff early game if you want to add further options to terran in the early/early midgame. Speedroach, speedling->cyclone?
Cyclone+herc might work well vs roach and speedling. Hellion + Cyclone. I don't know how a Roach/Speedling player can attack into that as long as terran just kites infinitely. Yeah I agree that Hellion + Cyclone looks to be pretty insane... if the Cyclone became slower, had shorter range, or shot less frequently, then that should help a bit. Yeh, so here is still my issue with Blizzard. Coming to the conclusion that Cyclone has too high range combined with too fast movement speed so it creates a bad interaction isn't very difficult. It would take 2 minutes in the unit tester to see that. These guys have like 8+ years of game development experience with Starcraft, so you would think they knew the basic check-list on what to test. So why on earth hasn't anyone at Blizzard tweaked those numbers before they released it into alpha? To me this just indicates that they are making the same errors as they have done previously by not focussing enough on making the various unit interactions fun.
I couldn't agree more.
|
As far as I remember, these sort of teaser releases are just to show potential extremes and build hype more than anything else, and they care very little about realistic balance this early. Remember the shredder?
Well there is still no downside to spending a bit of time tweaking the number stats of your units. This is what makes good interactions. And it's not particularly time consuming either as it would take like 2 minutes in the unit-tester, and then 1 minute to go into the editor and tweak its range, and another 1 minute to upload the patch.
Shredder was a different case, as it was a completley new concept that would require much more actual testing to see how it fitted into the gameplay.
|
On November 08 2014 23:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 23:18 Hider wrote:On November 08 2014 23:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 08 2014 22:54 Hider wrote:
I was mostly refering to the fact that 2 Cyclones shared about 70 kills between them before Terran ended the game by showing Battlecruisers. I do agree with you that the Hellion+Cyclone (theocraftically) seems unstoppable.
Units that can kite infinitely without taking any damage in a typical situation is never gonna work out. The range on the Cyclone is simply way too high vs Roaches. Also, give zerg some new stuff early game if you want to add further options to terran in the early/early midgame. Speedroach, speedling->cyclone?
Cyclone+herc might work well vs roach and speedling. Hellion + Cyclone. I don't know how a Roach/Speedling player can attack into that as long as terran just kites infinitely. Yeah I agree that Hellion + Cyclone looks to be pretty insane... if the Cyclone became slower, had shorter range, or shot less frequently, then that should help a bit. Yeh, so here is still my issue with Blizzard. Coming to the conclusion that Cyclone has too high range combined with too fast movement speed so it creates a bad interaction isn't very difficult. It would take 2 minutes in the unit tester to see that. These guys have like 8+ years of game development experience with Starcraft, so you would think they knew the basic check-list on what to test. So why on earth hasn't anyone at Blizzard tweaked those numbers before they released it into alpha? To me this just indicates that they are making the same errors as they have done previously by not focussing enough on making the various unit interactions fun. As far as I remember, these sort of teaser releases are just to show potential extremes and build hype more than anything else, and they care very little about realistic balance this early. Remember the shredder?  They have plenty of time to balance/ buff/ nerf/ remove things. There's no doubt in my mind that the cyclone will be modified.
Indeed!
And i do like the direction they are going with unit design. BUT there is a crucial mistake they absolutely must fix. Terran is getting early and mid-game buffs, zerg mid-late game buffs and protoss... early game nerfs and a strange robo unit. They should think again about some stuff XD, its not just about tweaking the numbers.
|
Artosis really missed an opportunity to make "PoO vs JaeZ"
|
On November 08 2014 23:33 Superbanana wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 23:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 08 2014 23:18 Hider wrote:On November 08 2014 23:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 08 2014 22:54 Hider wrote:
I was mostly refering to the fact that 2 Cyclones shared about 70 kills between them before Terran ended the game by showing Battlecruisers. I do agree with you that the Hellion+Cyclone (theocraftically) seems unstoppable.
Units that can kite infinitely without taking any damage in a typical situation is never gonna work out. The range on the Cyclone is simply way too high vs Roaches. Also, give zerg some new stuff early game if you want to add further options to terran in the early/early midgame. Speedroach, speedling->cyclone?
Cyclone+herc might work well vs roach and speedling. Hellion + Cyclone. I don't know how a Roach/Speedling player can attack into that as long as terran just kites infinitely. Yeah I agree that Hellion + Cyclone looks to be pretty insane... if the Cyclone became slower, had shorter range, or shot less frequently, then that should help a bit. Yeh, so here is still my issue with Blizzard. Coming to the conclusion that Cyclone has too high range combined with too fast movement speed so it creates a bad interaction isn't very difficult. It would take 2 minutes in the unit tester to see that. These guys have like 8+ years of game development experience with Starcraft, so you would think they knew the basic check-list on what to test. So why on earth hasn't anyone at Blizzard tweaked those numbers before they released it into alpha? To me this just indicates that they are making the same errors as they have done previously by not focussing enough on making the various unit interactions fun. As far as I remember, these sort of teaser releases are just to show potential extremes and build hype more than anything else, and they care very little about realistic balance this early. Remember the shredder? They have plenty of time to balance/ buff/ nerf/ remove things. There's no doubt in my mind that the cyclone will be modified. Indeed! And i do like the direction they are going with unit design. BUT there is a crucial mistake they absolutely must fix. Terran is getting early and mid-game buffs, zerg mid-late game buffs and protoss... early game nerfs and a strange robo unit. They should think again about some stuff XD, its not just about tweaking the numbers.
I really hope Protoss gets a second new unit, just like Terran and Zerg.
On November 08 2014 23:25 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +As far as I remember, these sort of teaser releases are just to show potential extremes and build hype more than anything else, and they care very little about realistic balance this early. Remember the shredder? Well there is still no downside to spending a bit of time tweaking the number stats of your units. This is what makes good interactions. And it's not particularly time consuming either as it would take like 2 minutes in the unit-tester, and then 1 minute to go into the editor and tweak its range, and another 1 minute to upload the patch. Shredder was a different case, as it was a completley new concept that would require much more actual testing to see how it fitted into the gameplay.
I'd imagine that Blizzard isn't quite yet sure how to balance everything (e.g., which nerf would best work for the cyclone) and just wanted to show some new prototypes. The units could have *always* been better, regardless of Blizzard's stage in creating LotV, so I don't want to jump on the hate bandwagon just yet. David Kim was pretty clear and repetitive with the fact that everything here is subject to change. They just wanted to present some possibilities, and some of them are most likely and good and interesting, and some of them are surely bad changes. ::shrugs::
|
@ Banshee. Does anyone know whether the Banshee starts with 7 range or that the 7 range comes with the speed-upgrade?
I'd imagine that Blizzard isn't quite yet sure how to balance everything (e.g., which nerf would best work for the cyclone) and just wanted to show some new prototypes. The units could have *always* been better, regardless of Blizzard's stage in creating LotV, so I don't want to jump on the hate bandwagon just yet.
Okay, but let me use an analogy here. Say you are to a multiple cross exam and you have 4 different answers, A, B, C or D. You know for a fact that the answer is not D, but your not sure whether its A, B or C.
What Blizzard done here was to answer D even though there is 0% probability that this is the solution while they easily instead could have answered A, B or C.
|
I heard that Banshees start with cloak now too? Is that accurate?
|
On November 09 2014 00:01 Hider wrote:@ Banshee. Does anyone know whether the Banshee starts with 7 range or that the 7 range comes with the speed-upgrade? Show nested quote +I'd imagine that Blizzard isn't quite yet sure how to balance everything (e.g., which nerf would best work for the cyclone) and just wanted to show some new prototypes. The units could have *always* been better, regardless of Blizzard's stage in creating LotV, so I don't want to jump on the hate bandwagon just yet. Okay, but let me use an analogy here. Say you are to a multiple cross exam and you have 4 different answers, A, B, C or D. You know for a fact that the answer is not D, but your not sure whether its A, B or C. What Blizzard done here was to answer D even though there is 0% probability that this is the solution while they easily instead could have answered A, B or C.
I disagree with that analogy, because D pigeonholes you into a particular answer (i.e., you're NOT choosing A, B, or C, and never will), but Blizzard has merely left the answer blank and is returning back to give an accurate response when they have more information on the question
If they applied a particular nerf already, we might not be able to see the bigger picture, potential, and other alternatives that a unit *could have been*. And that's much more like choosing D ahead of time. It reminds me of the old adage "Measure Twice, Cut Once". Why do it wrong/ blindly the first time, which would mean you'd limit your options and probably have to change it anyway?
|
On November 09 2014 00:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 00:01 Hider wrote:@ Banshee. Does anyone know whether the Banshee starts with 7 range or that the 7 range comes with the speed-upgrade? I'd imagine that Blizzard isn't quite yet sure how to balance everything (e.g., which nerf would best work for the cyclone) and just wanted to show some new prototypes. The units could have *always* been better, regardless of Blizzard's stage in creating LotV, so I don't want to jump on the hate bandwagon just yet. Okay, but let me use an analogy here. Say you are to a multiple cross exam and you have 4 different answers, A, B, C or D. You know for a fact that the answer is not D, but your not sure whether its A, B or C. What Blizzard done here was to answer D even though there is 0% probability that this is the solution while they easily instead could have answered A, B or C. I disagree with that analogy, because D pigeonholes you into a particular answer (i.e., you're NOT choosing A, B, or C, and never will), but Blizzard has merely left the answer blank and is returning back to give an accurate response when they have more information on the question If they applied a particular nerf already, we might not be able to see the bigger picture, potential, and other alternatives that a unit *could have been*. And that's much more like choosing D ahead of time. It reminds me of the old adage Measure Twice, Cut Once.
Leaving the answer blank will usually give you 0points as well.
|
On November 09 2014 00:09 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 00:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 09 2014 00:01 Hider wrote:@ Banshee. Does anyone know whether the Banshee starts with 7 range or that the 7 range comes with the speed-upgrade? I'd imagine that Blizzard isn't quite yet sure how to balance everything (e.g., which nerf would best work for the cyclone) and just wanted to show some new prototypes. The units could have *always* been better, regardless of Blizzard's stage in creating LotV, so I don't want to jump on the hate bandwagon just yet. Okay, but let me use an analogy here. Say you are to a multiple cross exam and you have 4 different answers, A, B, C or D. You know for a fact that the answer is not D, but your not sure whether its A, B or C. What Blizzard done here was to answer D even though there is 0% probability that this is the solution while they easily instead could have answered A, B or C. I disagree with that analogy, because D pigeonholes you into a particular answer (i.e., you're NOT choosing A, B, or C, and never will), but Blizzard has merely left the answer blank and is returning back to give an accurate response when they have more information on the question If they applied a particular nerf already, we might not be able to see the bigger picture, potential, and other alternatives that a unit *could have been*. And that's much more like choosing D ahead of time. It reminds me of the old adage Measure Twice, Cut Once. Leaving the answer blank will usually give you 0points as well.
I think you need to actually read my post before giving such a silly response
In particular, "and is returning back to give an accurate response when they have more information on the question"  Leaving the answer completely blank for good would mean that they have no intention of changing the units or new concepts, and DK has made it very clear that everything here is subject to change.
|
On November 09 2014 00:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 00:09 Big J wrote:On November 09 2014 00:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 09 2014 00:01 Hider wrote:@ Banshee. Does anyone know whether the Banshee starts with 7 range or that the 7 range comes with the speed-upgrade? I'd imagine that Blizzard isn't quite yet sure how to balance everything (e.g., which nerf would best work for the cyclone) and just wanted to show some new prototypes. The units could have *always* been better, regardless of Blizzard's stage in creating LotV, so I don't want to jump on the hate bandwagon just yet. Okay, but let me use an analogy here. Say you are to a multiple cross exam and you have 4 different answers, A, B, C or D. You know for a fact that the answer is not D, but your not sure whether its A, B or C. What Blizzard done here was to answer D even though there is 0% probability that this is the solution while they easily instead could have answered A, B or C. I disagree with that analogy, because D pigeonholes you into a particular answer (i.e., you're NOT choosing A, B, or C, and never will), but Blizzard has merely left the answer blank and is returning back to give an accurate response when they have more information on the question If they applied a particular nerf already, we might not be able to see the bigger picture, potential, and other alternatives that a unit *could have been*. And that's much more like choosing D ahead of time. It reminds me of the old adage Measure Twice, Cut Once. Leaving the answer blank will usually give you 0points as well. I think you need to actually read my post before giving such a silly response In particular, "and is returning back to give an accurate response when they have more information on the question" Leaving the answer completely blank for good would mean that they have no intention of changing the units or new concepts, and DK has made it very clear that everything here is subject to change.
Oh well, I thought in that that analogy the "test" is the visual presentation. So not giving any answer at the presentation is going to "fail the test at hand". You might eventually pass the course, but right now you are wrong.
|
On November 08 2014 23:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 23:33 Superbanana wrote:On November 08 2014 23:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 08 2014 23:18 Hider wrote:On November 08 2014 23:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 08 2014 22:54 Hider wrote:
I was mostly refering to the fact that 2 Cyclones shared about 70 kills between them before Terran ended the game by showing Battlecruisers. I do agree with you that the Hellion+Cyclone (theocraftically) seems unstoppable.
Units that can kite infinitely without taking any damage in a typical situation is never gonna work out. The range on the Cyclone is simply way too high vs Roaches. Also, give zerg some new stuff early game if you want to add further options to terran in the early/early midgame. Speedroach, speedling->cyclone?
Cyclone+herc might work well vs roach and speedling. Hellion + Cyclone. I don't know how a Roach/Speedling player can attack into that as long as terran just kites infinitely. Yeah I agree that Hellion + Cyclone looks to be pretty insane... if the Cyclone became slower, had shorter range, or shot less frequently, then that should help a bit. Yeh, so here is still my issue with Blizzard. Coming to the conclusion that Cyclone has too high range combined with too fast movement speed so it creates a bad interaction isn't very difficult. It would take 2 minutes in the unit tester to see that. These guys have like 8+ years of game development experience with Starcraft, so you would think they knew the basic check-list on what to test. So why on earth hasn't anyone at Blizzard tweaked those numbers before they released it into alpha? To me this just indicates that they are making the same errors as they have done previously by not focussing enough on making the various unit interactions fun. As far as I remember, these sort of teaser releases are just to show potential extremes and build hype more than anything else, and they care very little about realistic balance this early. Remember the shredder? They have plenty of time to balance/ buff/ nerf/ remove things. There's no doubt in my mind that the cyclone will be modified. Indeed! And i do like the direction they are going with unit design. BUT there is a crucial mistake they absolutely must fix. Terran is getting early and mid-game buffs, zerg mid-late game buffs and protoss... early game nerfs and a strange robo unit. They should think again about some stuff XD, its not just about tweaking the numbers. I really hope Protoss gets a second new unit, just like Terran and Zerg. Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 23:25 Hider wrote:As far as I remember, these sort of teaser releases are just to show potential extremes and build hype more than anything else, and they care very little about realistic balance this early. Remember the shredder? Well there is still no downside to spending a bit of time tweaking the number stats of your units. This is what makes good interactions. And it's not particularly time consuming either as it would take like 2 minutes in the unit-tester, and then 1 minute to go into the editor and tweak its range, and another 1 minute to upload the patch. Shredder was a different case, as it was a completley new concept that would require much more actual testing to see how it fitted into the gameplay. I'd imagine that Blizzard isn't quite yet sure how to balance everything (e.g., which nerf would best work for the cyclone) and just wanted to show some new prototypes. The units could have *always* been better, regardless of Blizzard's stage in creating LotV, so I don't want to jump on the hate bandwagon just yet. David Kim was pretty clear and repetitive with the fact that everything here is subject to change. They just wanted to present some possibilities, and some of them are most likely and good and interesting, and some of them are surely bad changes. ::shrugs::
There is no doubt the game will be balance soon enought.
But all these changes seems just... off-topic, unrelevant, random.
Seems that they've just added extreme action without deap reflexion about the gameplay.
Half of these changes will evolve I know but It is quite desapointing for now.
|
On November 09 2014 00:17 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 00:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 09 2014 00:09 Big J wrote:On November 09 2014 00:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 09 2014 00:01 Hider wrote:@ Banshee. Does anyone know whether the Banshee starts with 7 range or that the 7 range comes with the speed-upgrade? I'd imagine that Blizzard isn't quite yet sure how to balance everything (e.g., which nerf would best work for the cyclone) and just wanted to show some new prototypes. The units could have *always* been better, regardless of Blizzard's stage in creating LotV, so I don't want to jump on the hate bandwagon just yet. Okay, but let me use an analogy here. Say you are to a multiple cross exam and you have 4 different answers, A, B, C or D. You know for a fact that the answer is not D, but your not sure whether its A, B or C. What Blizzard done here was to answer D even though there is 0% probability that this is the solution while they easily instead could have answered A, B or C. I disagree with that analogy, because D pigeonholes you into a particular answer (i.e., you're NOT choosing A, B, or C, and never will), but Blizzard has merely left the answer blank and is returning back to give an accurate response when they have more information on the question If they applied a particular nerf already, we might not be able to see the bigger picture, potential, and other alternatives that a unit *could have been*. And that's much more like choosing D ahead of time. It reminds me of the old adage Measure Twice, Cut Once. Leaving the answer blank will usually give you 0points as well. I think you need to actually read my post before giving such a silly response In particular, "and is returning back to give an accurate response when they have more information on the question" Leaving the answer completely blank for good would mean that they have no intention of changing the units or new concepts, and DK has made it very clear that everything here is subject to change. Oh well, I thought in that that analogy the "test" is the visual presentation. So not giving any answer at the presentation is going to "fail the test at hand". You might eventually pass the course, but right now you are wrong.
It's a pretty crappy analogy anyway, because the test question isn't well-defined. I think "What new units are there" and "What new concepts are you exploring in LotV" would be more appropriate questions than "What's the perfect way to balance your newest unit". And I think they did a pretty good job of answering those two, more reasonable, questions.
I can understand Hider's concern about not balancing things, but if we're between "Not releasing information because we're not sure it'll work out/ hasn't been perfectly assessed yet" and "Release the information to build up hype and get a conversation going", I'm all for the latter. I like transparency, and I like to see what ideas Blizzard toys with, before they go into the garbage can or become modified. And I think hyping up the next game by giving us a little taste is one of the main purposes of these kinds of conventions.
We're not even in closed beta, let alone open beta, let alone the real release... I'd much prefer them throw around crazy ideas now and balance them later. Personal preference 
|
I'd imagine that Blizzard isn't quite yet sure how to balance everything (e.g., which nerf would best work for the cyclone) and just wanted to show some new prototypes. The units could have *always* been better, regardless of Blizzard's stage in creating LotV, so I don't want to jump on the hate bandwagon just yet. David Kim was pretty clear and repetitive with the fact that everything here is subject to change. They just wanted to present some possibilities, and some of them are most likely and good and interesting, and some of them are surely bad changes. ::shrugs::
Something to take into consideration is that 90% of these changes are stuff the community have been asking for years, warpgate, forcfield economy, capital ships, mech, lurkers, less deathball, more microable units.
So they not knowing how well things are going to turn out is actually a good sign, they probably want to take the community feedback in how to address each thing, where if they actually went fo a solution they made, they would just be forcing it down on us. One of the biggest complains of HotS is that they didn't let things work out and simply forced down band-aid solutions to everything, they probably don't want anything set on Stone so everything right now is OP as hell so they start tunning it down accordingly as the beta Works out.
|
That ZvT match was fail as exhibition. You want at least some kind of balance and the dev team looked like very silly showing this. Of course game wont be perfectly balanced, but you can't properly design units in vacuum, you have to at least some sense how strong things should be and how are they supposed to match against others.
|
Holy shit this forum sometimes...
|
On November 09 2014 00:37 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +
I'd imagine that Blizzard isn't quite yet sure how to balance everything (e.g., which nerf would best work for the cyclone) and just wanted to show some new prototypes. The units could have *always* been better, regardless of Blizzard's stage in creating LotV, so I don't want to jump on the hate bandwagon just yet. David Kim was pretty clear and repetitive with the fact that everything here is subject to change. They just wanted to present some possibilities, and some of them are most likely and good and interesting, and some of them are surely bad changes. ::shrugs::
Something to take into consideration is that 90% of these changes are stuff the community have been asking for years, warpgate, forcfield economy, capital ships, mech, lurkers, less deathball, more microable units. So they not knowing how well things are going to turn out is actually a good sign, they probably want to take the community feedback in how to address each thing, where if they actually went fo a solution they made, they would just be forcing it down on us. One of the biggest complains of HotS is that they didn't let things work out and simply forced down band-aid solutions to everything, they probably don't want anything set on Stone so everything right now is OP as hell so they start tunning it down accordingly as the beta Works out.
Agreed. It's nice to see that they directly responded to a lot of the biggest controversies in HotS, like forcefields, mech, and turtling on a few bases. Obviously it won't be perfect yet, but I'm cautiously optimistic and prefer to focus on the good ideas this early on in the development process
|
On November 09 2014 00:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 00:01 Hider wrote:@ Banshee. Does anyone know whether the Banshee starts with 7 range or that the 7 range comes with the speed-upgrade? I'd imagine that Blizzard isn't quite yet sure how to balance everything (e.g., which nerf would best work for the cyclone) and just wanted to show some new prototypes. The units could have *always* been better, regardless of Blizzard's stage in creating LotV, so I don't want to jump on the hate bandwagon just yet. Okay, but let me use an analogy here. Say you are to a multiple cross exam and you have 4 different answers, A, B, C or D. You know for a fact that the answer is not D, but your not sure whether its A, B or C. What Blizzard done here was to answer D even though there is 0% probability that this is the solution while they easily instead could have answered A, B or C. I disagree with that analogy, because D pigeonholes you into a particular answer (i.e., you're NOT choosing A, B, or C, and never will), but Blizzard has merely left the answer blank and is returning back to give an accurate response when they have more information on the question If they applied a particular nerf already, we might not be able to see the bigger picture, potential, and other alternatives that a unit *could have been*. And that's much more like choosing D ahead of time. It reminds me of the old adage "Measure Twice, Cut Once". Why do it wrong/ blindly the first time, which would mean you'd limit your options and probably have to change it anyway?
This isn't about nerfing or buffing. I don't care if a unit is like 10% too strong or too weak. What is more important is how the interaction work, and when one unit can kite another unit infinitely without taking damage, it's a terrible interaction, and must not stay in the game. Thus, "infinite kiting" here is similar to answer D, while a lower range could be anser C (a possible solution).
Also what exact bigger picture are you trying to see? A unit that can kite infinitely and is extremely boring to play against gives a good picture?
Why not start by working on making a specific interaction fun and then let the players battle it out? This would actually give a much better sense of the better picture. Once you get into beta, you can then tweak stats a bit, but the alpha-development is about creating interactions and unit roles (design).
Blizzard failed here, and I don't know why you want to defend Blizzard here when they make the same types of errors over and over.
|
On November 09 2014 00:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 00:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 09 2014 00:01 Hider wrote:@ Banshee. Does anyone know whether the Banshee starts with 7 range or that the 7 range comes with the speed-upgrade? I'd imagine that Blizzard isn't quite yet sure how to balance everything (e.g., which nerf would best work for the cyclone) and just wanted to show some new prototypes. The units could have *always* been better, regardless of Blizzard's stage in creating LotV, so I don't want to jump on the hate bandwagon just yet. Okay, but let me use an analogy here. Say you are to a multiple cross exam and you have 4 different answers, A, B, C or D. You know for a fact that the answer is not D, but your not sure whether its A, B or C. What Blizzard done here was to answer D even though there is 0% probability that this is the solution while they easily instead could have answered A, B or C. I disagree with that analogy, because D pigeonholes you into a particular answer (i.e., you're NOT choosing A, B, or C, and never will), but Blizzard has merely left the answer blank and is returning back to give an accurate response when they have more information on the question If they applied a particular nerf already, we might not be able to see the bigger picture, potential, and other alternatives that a unit *could have been*. And that's much more like choosing D ahead of time. It reminds me of the old adage "Measure Twice, Cut Once". Why do it wrong/ blindly the first time, which would mean you'd limit your options and probably have to change it anyway? This isn't about nerfing or buffing. I don't care if a unit is like 10% too strong or too weak. What is more important is how the interaction work, and when one unit can kite another unit infinitely without taking damage, it's a terrible interaction, and must not stay in the game.
This makes no sense to me, because nerfing and buffing and otherwise modifying the units are exactly what changes unit interactions. For you to say that things have to be fixed but not through nerfing or buffing seems like a contradiction. Obviously, infinite kiting is an issue. And to fix that, you either completely remove the unit, *or* change some of the stats so that such a thing no longer exists. That's what traditionally happens, and unless the unit gets completely scrapped, that's what we'll see here. Of course the interaction "must not stay in the game", and that's why they tweak the numbers over time and see what works and what doesn't. You're making a lot of presumptions about how Blizzard must suck because some things aren't working properly yet, in the earliest stages of the game. Maybe that ends up being a fair assessment, but I think it's too early to tell and so I'm not comfortable jumping on the bandwagon of "Well, this game is screwed/ fuck Blizzard."
Anyways, I must go. Enjoy your day
|
This makes no sense to me, because nerfing and buffing and otherwise changing the units are exactly what changes unit interactions
An interaction is about how you micro the units, so let's say Blizzard erfed the DPS of Marines by 5%. Would that change how you microed them vs Banelings? Probably not, and that's why it's a balance-change and not a design-chance.
If you change the range/movement speed of the new terran unit, the interaction is different as infinitive kiting is removed.
It's very easy to identify when there is a big flaw in the interaction by just playing around with the units in the unit-tester, while balance is a lot more complicated. That's why interactions that are this bad should be put into a playable alpha in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
