| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 22 2015 05:06 Elentos wrote: But the same thing could happen in ZvZ in HotS and LotV. I'm not sure if this is a statment that should contradict me, or support my cause that the matchup has been considered total crap for almost all its existance. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
though I do think photon overcharge is an easy get out of jail free card, but leave it for now, zerg has ravagers and terran has medivac siege tanks | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24202 Posts
On November 22 2015 05:18 emc wrote: I'd prefer no patches for 3 months, give us 3 full months of pros playing the game to see what's truly going on. though I do think photon overcharge is an easy get out of jail free card, but leave it for now, zerg has ravagers and terran has medivac siege tanks I agree, I thought the game would be utter garbage at release but it's actually pretty good -at least, I'm having a blast playing it. Ofc Z is probably a bit too strong, and the map pool isn't exactly the best, but some months of experimentation without WCS can do no harm. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25259 Posts
| ||
|
blooblooblahblah
Australia4163 Posts
On November 22 2015 05:36 Wombat_NI wrote: The map pool is pretty goddamn awful, it's difficult enough to ascertain the state of balance without having to it on such a sub-par pool. A better pool might go some way to mitigating perceived imbalances, or at the very least it wouldn't do any harm. Exactly, the map pool was just a huge mistake and probably the main thing that is demotivating me to play. I'd be okay to wait out some changes and let the game play out a bit if the maps were actually playable. But the maps are awful and they distort balance even more which is gonna make balancing even harder in the long run. Right when a game is released and there are tons of balance problems, going for a completely bizarre map pool makes literally zero sense. Blizzard should've given us the most boring, stale maps at the start so they can balance the game, then maybe add their weird, awful maps later on when the game is a bit more stable. I'm all for making slow changes to LotV in terms of balance, but the sabotage they did to the game through the map pool is unacceptable | ||
|
Mistakes
United States1102 Posts
On November 21 2015 04:31 Cricketer12 wrote: Its important not to freak out. The game just came out. Let people try to figure stuff out before making balance changes. That is something I've come to realize and dislike about the StarCraft 2 community lately. A map is weird or map pool is non-standard? - Everything is broken and stupid. A unit seems really strong but people have only been playing the game for a week? - The unit is OP and needs to be nerfed immediately; there is nothing anyone can ever do. It's really saddening. Think of the SaviOr difference. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On November 22 2015 05:03 Big J wrote: Funny, I open TakeTV, they discuss what's better (or rather worse), ZvZ or PvP. "Stalker/Disruptor is really cool", "Yeah but Ravager/Roach is cool too", "Yeah, but we never get to see that because games never get there". I switch stream to BasetradeTV: "We would never do an only ZvZ tournament. Like guys, do you really want to cast as twenty 14/14s in a row?" ... and that's why I still haven't bought this game, as a Zerg player 33% of my time is automatically wasted when I press the search opponent button. Well it all goes on opinion. For me I hate mirror match ups in general. I would never ever watch a zvz/pvp/tvt tournament. So boring. ZvZ has always been lame, but if I were Terran or Protoss I would think the same thing for all mirror MU's like I do now. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 22 2015 08:28 blade55555 wrote: Well it all goes on opinion. For me I hate mirror match ups in general. I would never ever watch a zvz/pvp/tvt tournament. So boring. ZvZ has always been lame, but if I were Terran or Protoss I would think the same thing for all mirror MU's like I do now. I think a lot of people, especially Terrans have been quite happy with the TvT mirror. And talking about ZvZ, I believe the matchup was reasonable in WoL times of roach/hydra/infestor, even if on rare occurances it ended with BL wars. Also PvP at times can look very exciting and I have high hopes for it in LotV with expansion play being as viable as never before and disruptors replacing colossi. But in ZvZ it's still like in the PvP 4gate era. Similar to 4gates people have figured out how to stop the ling/bling rushes and how to mirror them and often normal games can develop. But many games just don't and there is no real way to just strategically counter your opponent when he goes for it. Anyways, I'm back to talking my mouth fuzzy about things that I can't influence. If DK likes the status quo and the game sells it's probably time to admit defeat. | ||
|
HeroMystic
United States1217 Posts
On November 22 2015 09:05 Big J wrote: I think a lot of people, especially Terrans have been quite happy with the TvT mirror. And talking about ZvZ, I believe the matchup was reasonable in WoL times of roach/hydra/infestor, even if on rare occurances it ended with BL wars. Also PvP at times can look very exciting and I have high hopes for it in LotV with expansion play being as viable as never before and disruptors replacing colossi. But in ZvZ it's still like in the PvP 4gate era. Similar to 4gates people have figured out how to stop the ling/bling rushes and how to mirror them and often normal games can develop. But many games just don't and there is no real way to just strategically counter your opponent when he goes for it. Anyways, I'm back to talking my mouth fuzzy about things that I can't influence. If DK likes the status quo and the game sells it's probably time to admit defeat. I've switched to random for a time, but as a Terran I find the TvT match-up to be very stale, though it's stable. A lot of the harassment early game is defeated with the Cyclone, so midgame is often Marine/Tank with either Liberators or Vikings. Not much variation like there was in late WoL and HotS. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9377 Posts
On November 22 2015 05:18 emc wrote: I'd prefer no patches for 3 months, give us 3 full months of pros playing the game to see what's truly going on. though I do think photon overcharge is an easy get out of jail free card, but leave it for now, zerg has ravagers and terran has medivac siege tanks I prefer if we just nerf all zerg units by 80% and then let's see what the game is for a couple of months so pro's can figure it out. Becasue we can never say anything about balance until pro's have played on an unpatched game for 3 months... ORRR MAYBE we could do the logical thing and reevaluate the game on a case by case basis instead of following stupid rules that that is terrible for the health of the game just because it was like that in BW. | ||
|
bObA
France300 Posts
On November 21 2015 17:39 avilo wrote: Invulnerable low to zero counter play nydus worm still being in this game is perplexing to me. I totally agree with that. In TvZ you have to start mass bio and check everywhere eraly game to have a little chance not to be rekt | ||
|
ETisME
12387 Posts
On November 22 2015 05:13 Big J wrote: I'm not sure if this is a statment that should contradict me, or support my cause that the matchup has been considered total crap for almost all its existance. I would say zvz is much better in lotv if only they found a way to deal with the early pools. Ravagers and lurkers really changed up the mid to late vame | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
Hello everyone, and welcome to Legacy of the Void! Before we get started, we wanted to let you guys know that we’re thinking of pushing out our new league distribution percentages sometime in December before people go on vacation, and doing a season roll to get the percentages working correctly. This way, we can play during the break on a fresh season with the updated league distributions. Please keep in mind that this will not initiate a reset to your MMR (hidden skill rating), so the quality of matches should not be negatively impacted. Questions are still unanswered about the specific details of this new league distribution in the ladder revamp. Is the %'s for each league, the % of all players or the % of active players or something else? When you say Master is the top 4%, Diamond is the next 23%, 4% of what? 23% of what? The league boundaries have been known to drift out of their target % over time, with Blizzard only fixing it when a sufficient number of players notice and complain on the forums, so what will you do so that we know you will actually hit these %s? Also, tying the ladder to WCS makes sense once the ladder has actually been fixed up. Barcode issue There were many discussions on this side, and the conclusion from both the summit and the current top players in the world was that there was little we could change directly within the game to resolve this issue. With that in mind, we may collaborate with our Blizzard Esports team to tackle this issue going forward . We probably don’t need to go into every detail that we talked about here, but the general consensus (especially from the top end pro players who currently use barcodes) was that even if we went so far as to show “anonymous” instead of player names on the loading screen, removed match history, and more, players still felt it would be safer to barcode even if the advantage is less pronounced. However, if we were to integrate the top of the ladder with Esports (such as with WCS points, for example) it might be possible to incentivize players to use their correct IDs on ladder. We have begun discussing the possibilities on our development team in an effort to create the most accurate/transparent ladder, especially at the top. With our current ladder system however, changes doesn’t seem possible due to issues we’ve discussed at BlizzCon. So, as we work to redesign the ladder, we’ll also be in discussions with our Esports team to see what can be done here. The solution is simple. Auto force all names that contain only "I", "l" and "|" to be renamed using a random name generator. Alternatively, use a font that clearly differentiates between "I", "l" and "|" and see how anonymous these barcode players really feel then. More anonymous than naming them all "Anonymous"? lol but the general consensus (especially from the top end pro players who currently use barcodes) was that even if we went so far as to show “anonymous” instead of player names on the loading screen, removed match history, and more, players still felt it would be safer to barcode even if the advantage is less pronounced. Pros are feeding you superstitious bullshit, this suggestion would, as a matter of pure logic, be even more anonymous and foolproof than even barcodes. | ||
|
-KG-
Denmark1215 Posts
| ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On November 22 2015 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote: My thoughts. Questions are still unanswered about the specific details of this new league distribution in the ladder revamp. Is the %'s for each league, the % of all players or the % of active players or something else? When you say Master is the top 4%, Diamond is the next 23%, 4% of what? 23% of what? The league boundaries have been known to drift out of their target % over time, with Blizzard only fixing it when a sufficient number of players notice and complain on the forums, so what will you do so that we know you will actually hit these %s? Also, tying the ladder to WCS makes sense once the ladder has actually been fixed up. The solution is simple. Auto force all names that contain only "I", "l" and "|" to be renamed using a random name generator. Alternatively, use a font that clearly differentiates between "I", "l" and "|" and see how anonymous these barcode players really feel then. More anonymous than naming them all "Anonymous"? lol Pros are feeding you superstitious bullshit, this suggestion would, as a matter of pure logic, be even more anonymous and foolproof than even barcodes. Take away 'barcodes' and everyone will just use an identical name. The only solution is to force unique Bnet IDs which won't happen. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
Zvz were terrible in hots, cant speak of now but i am skeptical. Can totally understand why not to buy this game since you will dislike 33% of the matchups. | ||
|
weikor
Austria580 Posts
Sentries, with 75 energy max. But three times the regeneration, would allow for only 3 FF per sentry. (adjust hallucination manacost accordingly). This would have stopped the huge forcefield banks - while giving the sentry a more active role A similar probem now exists with the MSc. You can just bank 8 photon overcharges and absolutely devastate any aggression. If its more limited - this banking wouldnt be so much a problem | ||
|
bObA
France300 Posts
On November 21 2015 13:00 ETisME wrote: I am happy they are continuing community update, this is awesome. You are right me too | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On November 23 2015 03:12 weikor wrote: I dont get why they dont adjust maximum energy, and energy regeneration on certain units. Sentries, with 75 energy max. But three times the regeneration, would allow for only 3 FF per sentry. (adjust hallucination manacost accordingly). This would have stopped the huge forcefield banks - while giving the sentry a more active role A similar probem now exists with the MSc. You can just bank 8 photon overcharges and absolutely devastate any aggression. If its more limited - this banking wouldnt be so much a problem The whole concept of energy is archaic and completely antithetical to Blizzard's goals. If Blizzard ever creates a new RTS game expect it to virtually disappear and be replaced by a system more resembling any of their current iterations in D3, HotS, WoW etc. All the new systems do not allow you to run out of energy for more than a second (which players might find frustrating and unintuitive) and rely heavily on cooldowns to limit ability usage. Blizzard wants to control your user experience and they might not appreciate the strategic implications of the energy concept since it encourages players to be extreme in their handling of caster units (cast nothing to preserve energy, cast everything to win a fight) and building in safeguards into their game is too difficult. Personally I like the idea that energy is a resource and that casters should therefore be nurtured and guarded and that your opponent should try to force you to use your energy in order to keep your reserves low. That naturally creates a lot of strategy and interactions, but gives you freedom to abuse it if your opponent doesn't check you. RE: sentries, caster units in the early game are fundamentally wrong because you can just wall off and save up energy for a timing. It was always obvious that allowing sentries to scale in power with numbers would only leave timing windows open, because they create a state of being untouchable defensively and gaining in power until you max out on energy. Lowering the maximum energy is an obvious solution, but it breaks the 200 energy standard for every other spell caster, though it should have been considered by Blizzard. Imagine if snipe was still at its old strength and ghosts were at the same tech level as marauders, you would have so many timings where you would build up energy on 4-5 ghosts and crush your opponent. In the case of protoss and sentries this is of course exacerbated by warpgate, though at least that was more or less fixed. In defense of Blizzard, I do think that there was no obvious reason to even consider differentiating in maximum energy levels during early development since if energy reserves would ever be problematic they could always consider finetuning the global energy regeneration (which is a hidden value anyway), or, for specific cases, adjust unit and spell costs. Or even replace a spell by an ability with a cooldown. This method starts to fail with early game units, since that doesn't lead itself very well to generic RTS dynamics since there are all these specific timings, and in the case of the mothership core it's weird for being a unique unit. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On November 23 2015 02:28 ZAiNs wrote: Take away 'barcodes' and everyone will just use an identical name. The only solution is to force unique Bnet IDs which won't happen. What's wrong with people using identical names? The problem with barcodes is that they are gibberish. Identical names, like "Anonymous", that are non-gibberish are fine. If they want people to use their real names, tie ladder into WCS (but only after they fix the ladder). | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
