|
On November 21 2014 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 00:39 Big J wrote:On November 21 2014 00:36 Nebuchad wrote:On November 21 2014 00:23 Big J wrote:On November 21 2014 00:15 Nebuchad wrote:On November 21 2014 00:09 Big J wrote:On November 20 2014 23:59 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2014 23:54 Big J wrote:On November 20 2014 23:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2014 23:38 Big J wrote:[quote] There are 13immortals under the 7Colossi of Yellow and only 4Immortals in front of the 6Colossi of blue  Well I just did some digging and I think I found the game (Classic vs Rain), and blue won, right? hehe, that's another way to understand who is winning  Looking at the picture I thought blue was winning. He has a better arc, and he's about to warp behind the colossi of yellow which will allow for both lost shots of colossi and for an ability to target colossi faster than his opponents. His units are also more spread which means less aoe damage. What's not apparent in the picture is that yellow is also warping zealots close by, so blue will also lose shots, but I couldn't predict that. After you came with that information which seemed surprising, I looked the game in the archives and found it. Yellow had 10 immortals vs 6, not 13 vs 4, and did indeed lose. Now, if you showed me a snapshot of a TvT battle and asked me who was winning, I would be completely incapable of telling you that. Sorry, I was actually just trolling about the possibility that there could be massive amounts of immortals under yellows Colossi. I actually didn't even think that yellow had an actually immortal advantage. I agree, from the picture it looks like blue has an advantage through that prism and through splashing the Immortals and Colossi. But i think that's besides the point that The_Dwf was making. Which is that through all the big laser-effects and Colossi standing on top of other units it is really hard to determine what is going on. Sure but my counterpoint is that caring about what's going on is the most important part of understanding it. As someone who doesn't care about TvT I generally won't be able to tell you who's winning fights, and I don't think it'll change if you make TvT fights 'easier to understand' or something like that. The thing is that regardless of whether you care or not, when I give you a picture of TvT you can usually just count all the units on the picture. On the shown PvP picture I can't even determine the count of medium units like Archons/Immortals. There are way too many effects to get a clear picture - regardless of whether you understand PvP - to just see the action. That's the point, long before we talk about understanding it, it isn't really possible to just watch details of the battle. For a strict spectator it comes down to being able to tell intuitively who has more units or who is better positioned, and that's something I can do in PvP and not in TvT. Correct me if I'm wrong, but people don't pause the game to count the exact numbers unless they're analyzing it. To put it another way, if you make PvP visually easier, I don't know that the number of people understanding what's going on will increase dramatically. Well, you don't need exact numbers. That's really just putting it into the extreme that "even if you can pause the game you don't know who has what". In action it is all about getting vague numbers and those are still very hard to find out when looking at this combat in action. We basically said the same thing there, so I'm not sure how you arrive to the opposite conclusion. If what you need is a general sense of what people have and what's going on, then surely the way the battle looks like won't change much. People who like PvP will understand what's going on, but well, they already did. People who didn't like it will keep not liking it, and so they won't make the effort anymore than they did. As someone who can clearly see all of the units in TvT battles, I can report that it doesn't increase my interest.
I also don't think it's particularly relevant whether you can see all units or not. Rather, it's important that you can identify when something important/impressive occurs. PvP is just a mess there.
|
On November 21 2014 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 00:39 Big J wrote:On November 21 2014 00:36 Nebuchad wrote:On November 21 2014 00:23 Big J wrote:On November 21 2014 00:15 Nebuchad wrote:On November 21 2014 00:09 Big J wrote:On November 20 2014 23:59 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2014 23:54 Big J wrote:On November 20 2014 23:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2014 23:38 Big J wrote:[quote] There are 13immortals under the 7Colossi of Yellow and only 4Immortals in front of the 6Colossi of blue Well I just did some digging and I think I found the game (Classic vs Rain), and blue won, right? hehe, that's another way to understand who is winning Looking at the picture I thought blue was winning. He has a better arc, and he's about to warp behind the colossi of yellow which will allow for both lost shots of colossi and for an ability to target colossi faster than his opponents. His units are also more spread which means less aoe damage. What's not apparent in the picture is that yellow is also warping zealots close by, so blue will also lose shots, but I couldn't predict that. After you came with that information which seemed surprising, I looked the game in the archives and found it. Yellow had 10 immortals vs 6, not 13 vs 4, and did indeed lose. Now, if you showed me a snapshot of a TvT battle and asked me who was winning, I would be completely incapable of telling you that. Sorry, I was actually just trolling about the possibility that there could be massive amounts of immortals under yellows Colossi. I actually didn't even think that yellow had an actually immortal advantage. I agree, from the picture it looks like blue has an advantage through that prism and through splashing the Immortals and Colossi. But i think that's besides the point that The_Dwf was making. Which is that through all the big laser-effects and Colossi standing on top of other units it is really hard to determine what is going on. Sure but my counterpoint is that caring about what's going on is the most important part of understanding it. As someone who doesn't care about TvT I generally won't be able to tell you who's winning fights, and I don't think it'll change if you make TvT fights 'easier to understand' or something like that. The thing is that regardless of whether you care or not, when I give you a picture of TvT you can usually just count all the units on the picture. On the shown PvP picture I can't even determine the count of medium units like Archons/Immortals. There are way too many effects to get a clear picture - regardless of whether you understand PvP - to just see the action. That's the point, long before we talk about understanding it, it isn't really possible to just watch details of the battle. For a strict spectator it comes down to being able to tell intuitively who has more units or who is better positioned, and that's something I can do in PvP and not in TvT. Correct me if I'm wrong, but people don't pause the game to count the exact numbers unless they're analyzing it. To put it another way, if you make PvP visually easier, I don't know that the number of people understanding what's going on will increase dramatically. Well, you don't need exact numbers. That's really just putting it into the extreme that "even if you can pause the game you don't know who has what". In action it is all about getting vague numbers and those are still very hard to find out when looking at this combat in action. We basically said the same thing there, so I'm not sure how you arrive to the opposite conclusion. If what you need is a general sense of what people have and what's going on, then surely the way the battle looks like won't change much. People who like PvP will understand what's going on, but well, they already did. People who didn't like it will keep not liking it, and so they won't make the effort anymore than they did. As someone who can clearly see all of the units in TvT battles, I can report that it doesn't increase my interest.
I think it is just visually displeasing and has negative effects (even if usually small) for gameplay such as precise clicks on units that are partly covered under big animations. That's my entire point.
It's not as much about the understanding what is happening, just seeing what is going on. Like, just tone down the Colossus lasors are little bit for example.
I think we have had a few maps over which people have been rightfully complaining because of too much glowing stuff. This is the same. It's just makes stuff harder to follow for no good reason.
|
Exploring ways to reduce micro in the game that can’t really be seen vs. increasing micro that players can show off.
I would like to get an example of the bolded part, workers are already heavily automated..
|
Seems like a good update, nothing really to be concerned about I dont think.
|
On November 21 2014 01:51 robopork wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 09:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:As far as resourcing is concerned, right now, we’d like to specifically target a change where players need to spread their bases out more so that there’s a lot more action going on. We believe this will have two benefits: players going on the offense will have more attacking options, and players on the defense can show off their defending skill better since they have to defend a much wider area now. But Protoss is still insanely immobile compared to Terran and Zerg  We'll be pulled apart, left and right x.x What I hope this means is that we'll get a massive make-over. What I'm afraid this means is that we'll get two mothership cores.
So awesome :D
I actually think that it would be a reasonable option to remove the uniqueness restruction of the msc so that it becomes a regular unit, that would give protoss real reliable hit and run potential and better defense ability.
Without everything riding on one single unique unit.
I would be so happy happy if they dropped the whole mothership notion. Just call that thing energycore and make it a support unit (maybe remove the attack).
OR kill the unit and give recall to the Nexus - one of the coolest ideas in Starbow is the Nexus ability to recall units but only 5 at a time, which will actually make more Nexi more useful and will boost small attack squads.
|
On November 21 2014 03:32 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +Exploring ways to reduce micro in the game that can’t really be seen vs. increasing micro that players can show off. I would like to get an example of the bolded part, workers are already heavily automated..
For me that would be for example the corrupt ability, the voidray ability, as well as movement related stuff like moving shot.
Plus, as has been said, the point to take away is that they only want to add more visibly recognizable micro options.
There are also some things to consider about the economy/worker changes:
- less minerals per base means that the payback per expansion is much smaller, which will actually make static defense much less cost effective
- that in turn might either further more 1 base all-in's (which would have a much smaller timing window now)
- or lead to more low tech/ low tier battles since resources are theoretically more valuable now due to the lower investment/return ratio - since you will still need to expand you have to save money and that may come from not teching and skipping static defense (or doing both to a lower degree)
- there is nothing to indicate thate rushes or buildorder variation will disappear, you still have the choice of investing into 1.eco(worker,geyser),
2.expanding
3.doing any kind of aggressive build.
only the specific timings and numbers will change.
If that will help the game or not can't really be determined without testing.
I like what they do, I just hope they don't roll back on all the big changes.
*edited for clarification
|
heres the thing, terran big surprise is broken, but they will fix it...dont worry (it will still be broken, but not AS broken)
|
We should stop making conclusions about incorrect data but continue fruitless discussion of incorrect data? Little frustrated with that catch 22. Feel free to give us any updated data then, we won't bite anymore than we already are doing.
|
On November 21 2014 09:15 Cloak wrote:
We should stop making conclusions about incorrect data but continue fruitless discussion of incorrect data? Little frustrated with that catch 22. Feel free to give us any updated data then, we won't bite anymore than we already are doing.
I dont know what to tell you other than theorycraft and wait for beta
|
On November 20 2014 04:27 BronzeKnee wrote:That's all that actually matters from what was said. Blizzard is totally clueless when to balancing. We learn that every time Blizzard releases a RTS game, they ignore the community, then end up giving them what they want months later after realizing it was the right thing to do, but still claim credit.
Right, because 'the community' speaks with one voice and has always been correct.
That's not how I remember it. I remember the community being mostly wrong, and the ones who were right mostly being right for reasons other than the ones they used to justify their opinions
Blizzard understand that an RTS is *impossible* to design on paper. The best you can do is throw in big changes to shake things up, hopefully into a new and interesting place, and then make progressively smaller tweaks to home in on the goodness.
|
On November 21 2014 09:39 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 04:27 BronzeKnee wrote:Beta will look much different than what you saw at BlizzCon
Thank you.
That's all that actually matters from what was said. Blizzard is totally clueless when to balancing. We learn that every time Blizzard releases a RTS game, they ignore the community, then end up giving them what they want months later after realizing it was the right thing to do, but still claim credit. Right, because 'the community' speaks with one voice and has always been correct. That's not how I remember it. I remember the community being mostly wrong, and the ones who were right mostly being right for reasons other than the ones they used to justify their opinions Blizzard understand that an RTS is *impossible* to design on paper. The best you can do is throw in big changes to shake things up, hopefully into a new and interesting place, and then make progressively smaller tweaks to home in on the goodness.
most big changes prob will get thrown out anyways
|
On November 21 2014 09:17 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 09:15 Cloak wrote:
We should stop making conclusions about incorrect data but continue fruitless discussion of incorrect data? Little frustrated with that catch 22. Feel free to give us any updated data then, we won't bite anymore than we already are doing. I dont know what to tell you other than theorycraft and wait for beta
Blizzard seeks feedback of their new DESIGNs, not balance - or imbalamce. So far, ravager and lurker are the only new units that everyone gives compliments to, while other changes are ruthlessly cricitized, especially the cyclone and corrupter's "void ray" attack.
|
The cyclone really says a lot about what is going on over there.
|
On November 21 2014 12:29 tshi wrote:
The cyclone really says a lot about what is going on over there.
The idea is good. What's next is just some adjustment of its statistics to make it not seem so OP.
|
how can people make statements like "blizzard is clueless when it comes to balance"
if they were clueless at balancing an RTS game then we would have had 80/20 winrates throughout wol and the scene wouldn't exist
people and their whiny, entitled hyperbole, jesus
|
On November 21 2014 12:44 TedCruz2016 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 12:29 tshi wrote:
The cyclone really says a lot about what is going on over there. The idea is good. What's next is just some adjustment of its statistics to make it not seem so OP.
I don't get why the cyclone needs to have bonus damage when it's locked on to a target, maybe someone asked DK at Blizzcon or something I don't know.
|
Neither do I. I think moving shot at one locked target is already a bonus.
|
On November 21 2014 12:49 Cheren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 12:44 TedCruz2016 wrote:On November 21 2014 12:29 tshi wrote:
The cyclone really says a lot about what is going on over there. The idea is good. What's next is just some adjustment of its statistics to make it not seem so OP. I don't get why the cyclone needs to have bonus damage when it's locked on to a target, maybe someone asked DK at Blizzcon or something I don't know.
The thing about the cyclone IMO is that Blizz played PR over us a bit
They basically made the unit and said - hey Terran players - here's your Mech bread & butter unit - the Marine 2.0 - without even giving the role to the unit so they could "buy time" to keep the door shut to the public a bit longer I think
Basically they didn't commit to any decision regarding the unit, just kept it as OP so people would have "fun" with it.. Oh well
It's basically a PR thing - it's annoying but it's PR thing, it's a "have more options open" tactic with relation to us all
BUT as a result - instead of us having a good "grasp" and a positive discussion about the unit - we're just "speculating" or flaming each other (most of the time actually), which is a bit saddening when you think of it.. :\
|
I think it will be cool if the cyclone is replaced with diamondback, haha.
|
Is there any other dev out there as talented at saying so little in so many words as blizzard?
Dont have people try something then immediately say all their opinions cant be valid, in that case you were better off just announcing the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
