|
Katowice25012 Posts
Show nested quote +On December 07 2015 19:28 raXNT wrote:
Care to give a reason for any of your opinions? As it is I think your post can be boiled down to one sentence: "I don't like the disruptor, and my friends don't either." You talk about the swarm host, but don't establish how they're similar, you say it's a design flaw but don't say why. If Blizzard gets a lot of feedback, some in favor of the disruptor, some opposed, then one more person saying "I don't like it" isn't gonna change anything. If you talked about why it's bad, and ways that it could be better, at least your feedback might be useful for something Yes please show me where Blizzard are getting their claimed "majority of feedback" "WE LOVE PVP DISRUPTOR WARS" It's a random unit that can end games in 1 shot its extremely volatile and luck based. Blizzard has tried to get away from "volatile" game play yet they managed to create this unit. The wow and excitement factor Blizzard are talking about is not there, and what little excitement there is will dissapear as people will win games they dont diserve to win because of this badly designed unit. Just like the swarm host the cost efficiency potential is beyond anything you can possibly justify. You are going to see games in Korea where players will insta GG out of the game too 1 disruptor shot hit in big matches.
The great irony in these arguments is that for like a solid 2 years of WoL everyone complained that there wasn't enough volatile abilities like BW Reavers.
|
Big J has that point spot on, the number of behind the mineral line abusive units in the game is at epidemic proportions. Prisms,Oracles, Warpivacs and Mutas that make the Millennium Falcon look slow are just a few i can name.
You need cat like reflexes just to react to the damn things
|
On December 07 2015 20:07 Heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2015 19:28 raXNT wrote:
Care to give a reason for any of your opinions? As it is I think your post can be boiled down to one sentence: "I don't like the disruptor, and my friends don't either." You talk about the swarm host, but don't establish how they're similar, you say it's a design flaw but don't say why. If Blizzard gets a lot of feedback, some in favor of the disruptor, some opposed, then one more person saying "I don't like it" isn't gonna change anything. If you talked about why it's bad, and ways that it could be better, at least your feedback might be useful for something Yes please show me where Blizzard are getting their claimed "majority of feedback" "WE LOVE PVP DISRUPTOR WARS" It's a random unit that can end games in 1 shot its extremely volatile and luck based. Blizzard has tried to get away from "volatile" game play yet they managed to create this unit. The wow and excitement factor Blizzard are talking about is not there, and what little excitement there is will dissapear as people will win games they dont diserve to win because of this badly designed unit. Just like the swarm host the cost efficiency potential is beyond anything you can possibly justify. You are going to see games in Korea where players will insta GG out of the game too 1 disruptor shot hit in big matches. The great irony in these arguments is that for like a solid 2 years of WoL everyone complained that there wasn't enough volatile abilities like BW Reavers.
There's always someone unhappy.
|
On December 07 2015 10:04 raXNT wrote:
I'm a Protoss player and I HATE THE DISRUPTOR more then anything you have ever done in SC2 history.
Are you gonna take as many years as you did with swarmhost to realize and ADMIT that this unit is a COMPLETE design flaw from your side and that it doesnt make for great games?.
Everyone I know in SC2 community and everyone they know HATE THIS UNIT and everything in my Protoss soul tells me this unit is a completely flawed unit that does not add anything good to SC2.
Look at Swarm host now, you NEVER SEE IT.
At Blizzcon you said you learned alot from WOL and HOTS, well I have yet to see it.
Hopeless
Yo my brother, long time no see.
I've also bought LoTv. Half the unints are over powered, and they other half are unplayable.
I actually cannot believe how thin this "Community Feedback" was from blizzard...
|
On December 07 2015 20:07 Heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2015 19:28 raXNT wrote:
Care to give a reason for any of your opinions? As it is I think your post can be boiled down to one sentence: "I don't like the disruptor, and my friends don't either." You talk about the swarm host, but don't establish how they're similar, you say it's a design flaw but don't say why. If Blizzard gets a lot of feedback, some in favor of the disruptor, some opposed, then one more person saying "I don't like it" isn't gonna change anything. If you talked about why it's bad, and ways that it could be better, at least your feedback might be useful for something Yes please show me where Blizzard are getting their claimed "majority of feedback" "WE LOVE PVP DISRUPTOR WARS" It's a random unit that can end games in 1 shot its extremely volatile and luck based. Blizzard has tried to get away from "volatile" game play yet they managed to create this unit. The wow and excitement factor Blizzard are talking about is not there, and what little excitement there is will dissapear as people will win games they dont diserve to win because of this badly designed unit. Just like the swarm host the cost efficiency potential is beyond anything you can possibly justify. You are going to see games in Korea where players will insta GG out of the game too 1 disruptor shot hit in big matches. The great irony in these arguments is that for like a solid 2 years of WoL everyone complained that there wasn't enough volatile abilities like BW Reavers.
I don't know if we played the same game but BW reaver micro took great skill and multi tasking, especially with shuttle micro. The stark contrast between those army compositions and SC2 army compositions is that... stalkers have an ability... sentries have abilities... adepts have an ability... templar have an ability... and to even use your 'new reaver' you have to essentially baby sit the control while also avoiding the others. It'd be like if you had to manually move your reaver scarab after targetting something.
Moreover, how unforgiving this unit is in PvP is almost hilarious. It's not the greatest thing as P when your army cost efficiency is supposed to be what is so great and it all dies in 1 shot in a mirror >.>...
|
On December 07 2015 20:07 Heyoka wrote:
The great irony in these arguments is that for like a solid 2 years of WoL everyone complained that there wasn't enough volatile abilities like BW Reavers.
You also have to keep in mind, that Reavers in BW were not as strong as the Disruptor is now. Reavers did not 1 shot dragoons. They also did less damage the further a unit was away from the impact point. Reaver scarabs also suffered from pathing, could not traverse cliffs or go past buildings or even hit a unit within a group if the group was moving.
Yes, the Disruptor is kind of similar to the Reaver, but I would argue that it is a more extreme version of the Reaver. More movement, more damage, more APM required, more more more. At some point its just too much and it crosses the line twice.
|
Watching Bombers stream, seeing how Pylons are being used as Offensive Cannons when he goes CC first.
I can hardly imagine that was what was intended when Photon Overcharge was put into the game.
I mean, its like Terran Supply Depots turning into offensive planetary fortresses in a 11/11.
Clearly something needs to be changed. I dont know how 50 energy would change it.. But still.
|
On December 08 2015 01:52 Glorfindel! wrote:
Watching Bombers stream, seeing how Pylons are being used as Offensive Cannons when he goes CC first.
I can hardly imagine that was what was intended when Photon Overcharge was put into the game.
I mean, its like Terran Supply Depots turning into offensive planetary fortresses in a 11/11.
Clearly something needs to be changed. I dont know how 50 energy would change it.. But still.
First of all, it doesn't really matter what the intent was, Blizzard expects and wants people to use things in ways they didn't expect. Secondly, the offensive capabilities of Pylon Overcharge are intentional. When the change first happened in beta, the main feedback was that only Pylons touching a Nexus/Warpgate (i.e., have fast warp-in capabilities) should be Overchargeable, but Blizzard straight up said they liked the offensive options it can provide.
|
On December 08 2015 02:22 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 01:52 Glorfindel! wrote:
Watching Bombers stream, seeing how Pylons are being used as Offensive Cannons when he goes CC first.
I can hardly imagine that was what was intended when Photon Overcharge was put into the game.
I mean, its like Terran Supply Depots turning into offensive planetary fortresses in a 11/11.
Clearly something needs to be changed. I dont know how 50 energy would change it.. But still. First of all, it doesn't really matter what the intent was, Blizzard expects and wants people to use things in ways they didn't expect. Secondly, the offensive capabilities of Pylon Overcharge are intentional. When the change first happened in beta, the main feedback was that only Pylons touching a Nexus/Warpgate (i.e., have fast warp-in capabilities) should be Overchargeable, but Blizzard straight up said they liked the offensive options it can provide.
Of course it matters what the intention was. That's the difference between a successful design and an unsuccessful one. If the intention as you say was that people should use it "whatever way they can figure" or straight up offensively than that is obviously OK. But yeah, intentions are what defines a designer. A designer with no intentions is no designer at all.
Also I think they said something along the lines of people figuring out the offensive PO already and therefore it not being an issue. Which obviously is a bad argumentation basis if it is not actually disappearing and being figured out.
|
I recall the widow mine originally being something like a spider mine, but then Blizzard elected to make it reusable. Now the disruptor was originally like a reusable scarab, but now they turned it into something which spawns scarabs. There seem to be some parallels here, and generally speaking units seem to be more reusable than they used to. One might speak of a trend.
If one looks at the additions made in the recent two expansions, virtually every change has made specific units more rather than less resilient. Medivacs now have an escape ability, mutalisks have increased regeneration, tanks synergize with medivacs, ultralisks have extreme armor, mutalisks, phoenixes and many others are faster, tempests and swarm hosts are long distance units, warp prisms can employ more securely, cyclones are incredibly fast, adepts have a blink-esque escape ability. And casters like ghosts, infestors, vipers have always been long-range units that one can aim to preserve.
And at the same time there is more fire power added to the game which excels at blowing up mineral-only units. Disruptors, widow mines, ravagers, lurkers, banelings, psionic storm can wreak devastation on marines and the like. And I wonder if with the new economy people tend to have an easier time getting a relatively higher gas income, although I'm not sure.
My hypothesis is this might privilege gas units over mineral units, the latter will become purely fodder while your gas units constitute the bulk of your army over time. This will happen especially in scenarios where there is frequent trading, since that's where your mineral units are most literally expendable. Think of the widow mine parade pushes in TvZ where you never need to replenish medivacs and therefore gas will keep building up until you no longer have any use for it. As players learn to adjust for these scenarios they might start to give gas units more prominent roles in their armies.
Anyhow, that's the theory, but I wonder if it holds up. Has anyone had any experience with these sort of things?
|
On December 07 2015 19:28 raXNT wrote:Show nested quote +
Care to give a reason for any of your opinions? As it is I think your post can be boiled down to one sentence:
"I don't like the disruptor, and my friends don't either."
You talk about the swarm host, but don't establish how they're similar, you say it's a design flaw but don't say why. If Blizzard gets a lot of feedback, some in favor of the disruptor, some opposed, then one more person saying "I don't like it" isn't gonna change anything. If you talked about why it's bad, and ways that it could be better, at least your feedback might be useful for something
Yes please show me where Blizzard are getting their claimed "majority of feedback" "WE LOVE PVP DISRUPTOR WARS" It's a random unit that can end games in 1 shot its extremely volatile and luck based. Blizzard has tried to get away from "volatile" game play yet they managed to create this unit. The wow and excitement factor Blizzard are talking about is not there, and what little excitement there is will dissapear as people will win games they dont diserve to win because of this badly designed unit. Just like the swarm host the cost efficiency potential is beyond anything you can possibly justify. You are going to see games in Korea where players will insta GG out of the game too 1 disruptor shot hit in big matches.
Again, most of your statements go no deeper than "I don't like the unit." "The wow factor is not there" is subjective, so you're ultimately just saying that you don't get a sense of "wow" from the unit.
The one statement that gives a reason for your opinion is saying that the unit is random and luck-based, but on the first point that's demonstrably untrue - every behavior of the unit is deterministic, with no RNG at any point - and on the latter point it seems a bit early to say the skill cap with the unit has been reached, and players will no longer be able to differentiate themselves by microing with and against disruptors better than other players
|
You seen terran and toss learning how to deal with zergs more and more with every weekly cup and every ladder game. Lurkers already take forever to get to and people are figureing out how to deal with ravagers. I think people are just complaining because the meta is so new right now. I would wait a long time before nerfing zerg.
|
Probably more frustrated with Blizzard now than I have been at any point in SC2. It's an odd sense of stubbornness that has always existed, yet after so many years of it, instead of pushing back, I feel like giving up.
|
please improve cyclones somehow they are just to expensive for what they do.
|
Race distribution by league:
GM: Terran: 29.96% Zerg 40.20% Protoss 27.18% Random 2.65%
Masters: Terran 33.31% Zerg 38.59% Protoss 24.93% Random 3.18%
Diamond: Terran 30.65% Zerg 40.48% Protoss 22.44% Random 6.43%
Plat: Terran 27.99% Zerg 37.76% Protoss 23.01% Random 11.24%
Gold: Terran 26.93% Zerg 33.71% Protoss 27.86% Random 11.50%
Silver: Terran 27.27% Zerg 28.09% Protoss 33.50% Random 11.14%
Bronze: Terran 29.59% Zerg 22.24% Protoss 36.44% Random 11.73%
Do you really think, this evens out eventually, when "the pros" show us ways to beat zerg, like they suggested? I was a diamond protoss in Hots and now i can only beat gold zergs, barely being able to play in plat right now.
|
On December 08 2015 17:00 donek99 wrote:
Do you really think, this evens out eventually, when "the pros" show us ways to beat zerg, like they suggested? I was a diamond protoss in Hots and now i can only beat gold zergs, barely being able to play in plat right now.
I don't quite understand this argument. Balance at lower lvls should be secondary AND ease of execution shouldn't even really come in the picture.
In brood war, protoss is A LOT easier to play at the lowest lvls. The message to terrans and zergs is to get better. A great message for life in general instead of expecting an entire game's balance being upset or resources being dedicated to figuring out how to make your life easier.
|
On December 08 2015 19:07 B-royal wrote:
...
I don't quite understand this argument. Balance at lower lvls should be secondary AND ease of execution shouldn't even really come in the picture.
...
Actually you and the rest of the people that think like you are very wrong. Please do not take any offence by this statement as it is not intended.
Let's have a look at some numbers first, not accurate by any means but they should be enough to prove the point.
- 6% of the players are "pro" level
- 94% of the players are the masses
Now, those 6% players are very very good at advertising the game for the rest of the 94%.
However, the rest 94% of the players are the cash milking cow. They are the ones that pay cash from their own pockets to keep those 6%, Blizzard and the whole SC2 scene happy (by donating to tournaments, buying the game, buying tickets to tournaments, viewing commercials during high level play, etc.).
So no i ask you, balance at lower levels should be secondary ? It seams that it is, there is no question about it.
Is it good that it is on a secondary level tough ? No! This is the exact same reason why the turnover rate is so high with SC2, and the same reason why Blizzard has hard times keeping those 94% of players active without releasing new content.
The game is slowly but surely shifting away from what we actually want, we want to play a game. A game, nothing more, nothing less. We do not plan to get to "pro" level play, we just want to have fun and we are also paying cash for it.
It's very hard to keep 94% of the players happy and i understand that, but by no means they should be treated on a secondary level or else they will get back to the daily lives and you'll have problems with getting viewers for the "pro" guys. The scene will slowly but surely go under the radar if this is the case (as it was the case with WoL and HotS, do we really want LotV to become the same ?).
It looks like Blizzard has seen the light tough with co-op missions, online tournaments, etc., but it's not enough.
p.s. I understand that once the 6% game play will become balanced it will slowly go down the ladder, and it will balance the lower leagues also. Only time will tell if it will be soon enough tough.
p.s.s. No offence to anybody, please let's not start a war
|
Let's have a good discussion about this 
The infamous casual player who's just here to play a game. Why does a casual player care whether he has to exert more effort to win versus a supposedly worse player? If he's here just to have fun, he can have fun whether he's in bronze league or in gold league, "justified" or not.
If balance at lower leagues is skewed all that will happen is a reshuffling of players. Players that have the same skill as those of another race, which is favoured against them, will be in a lower league playing opponents that are objectively worse than them. However, they'll be able to win 50% of their games in this lower league, what's so bad about this?
Brood war never failed to attract players. If a game is fun, people will play it. You said it yourself, they're not looking to be competitive, so why compare your skill level with someone else's?
It is absolutely critical that at the highest level the game is balanced or there won't be an eSports. Balance at the professional level trumps everything. Now if balance has been achieved at the professional lvl and there's some MAJOR issues at lower lvls, you could consider changing things that are irrelevant at the higher lvls (for example making a race mechanically less demanding for lower lvls => stacking injects).
The only downside I really see is that having one race be considerably easier for beginners could result in one race being hugely overrepresented leading to a less fun ladder experience. Having varied races, with tons of different units and unique art styles could counteract this.
|
On December 09 2015 02:05 B-royal wrote:
...
You make one critical mistake with your arguments: you use logic.
People do not behave logical. Their feelings are not bound by the laws of logic. Even iff they have no reason to care about rank or balance they still do. Bronze league players who "just want to play the game" still bitch about other races being OP. They probably do so much more then pros. The pros have every right to cry about balance. Their job depends on it. But its not the pros that are the balance whiners. Its those who do not have to care but who care anyways.
|
On December 09 2015 03:19 RoomOfMush wrote:You make one critical mistake with your arguments: you use logic. People do not behave logical. Their feelings are not bound by the laws of logic. Even iff they have no reason to care about rank or balance they still do. Bronze league players who "just want to play the game" still bitch about other races being OP. They probably do so much more then pros. The pros have every right to cry about balance. Their job depends on it. But its not the pros that are the balance whiners. Its those who do not have to care but who care anyways.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tfHzLmX.jpg)
Had to put this here
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
