Gamespeed is not a good suggestion in my opinion. You internalize a different time sense and when you rank up that internal clock doesn't match with the game anymore. Also I see a lot of consistency problems, e.g. when you have placement matches or when a gold meets a platinum. Also gold-platinum sounds quite too high for me as a border. The (remaining) playerbase of SC2 is pretty hardcore, being in gold isn't that terrible.
About patching, as always I hold the stance that patching a bit too much is always better than patching too little. Patches can be taken back very quickly if blizzard is as watchful as they claim to be. No-patches don't do anything. And the general direction of patches has been positive in SC2 on average (which means that some patches might have been bad, but in general the patches have improved the game step-by-step).
Some more direct feedback on the upbrought topics: Photon Overcharge Energy Cost Increase: Yes please. If not for balance reasons, if not for reasons of Protoss having too much defense, please do it so that not every TvP ladder game is a pylon rush at the ramp.
Adept: The combat capabilities of the unit are OK in my opinion, but the psionic transfer allows them to suicide on workers too efficiently and close in on enemy armies with range advantages too easily. My suggestion: Normal collision for the shade, the shade gets pushed by every unit in the game (think of an archon under construction) to prevent invulnerable blocks.
Roach/Ravager is fine in the grand scheme of things, but a nerf on the morphing time and maybe a slight nerf on the corrosive bile cooldown, i.e. 2-3 extra seconds, might increase the gamequality a little bit.
Parasitic Bomb Nerf sounds good to me. But I wanna bring up some alternatives to the 90-->60 damage nerf again. a) Damage delay in some form, for example starting the damage per second lower and then increasing it over time (for a total of 80-90). That way there is a bigger reward for splitting an affected unit off early. b) Stacking removed, so a unit may only be affected by 1 parasitic bomb's splash at a time.
Baneling Speed increase: No, baneling speed works extremely well in relation with stimmed marines which is their main application. There are a lot of stats on banelings and other units that can be altered, but the speed of banelings is something that makes for very enjoyable gameplay.
We do agree with you and think that in the long run, if the Roach/Ravager combo remains powerful, it may be problematic due to Zerg players mostly focusing on utilizing this combo in most of their matchups. Here, the main thing to figure out is where Zerg strength really lies. We completely agreed with you in that Zerg looked to be the strongest race at the start of Legacy of the Void. However, after pinging many of the highest level players during the break, we wonder if this is changing due to players adapting to the new Zerg strengths.
For example, if Zerg turns out to be weaker vs. Terran and solid vs. Protoss, instead of focusing on a Ravager nerf like we are currently, we can potentially look at other things such as an increase to Baneling movement speed to combat the new Terran tools against them such as Tier 1 Reaper grenades or Tier 2 Siege Tank medivac pick up. Of course, this is just one example and depending on how things turn out, we would obviously need to come up with the right solution accordingly.
Yay, more speed increases. That'll be fun for terran to split against faster banelings.
Also, I think this is maybe interesting regarding game design: it seems like diversity in strategy for Blizzard for protoss revolves around a proper balance between mostly robo, stargate, with assumed support of gateway units, so that the precise relative balance of gateway units isn't that meaningful because the different roles and resource costs guarantee all the units will be used in some fashion anyway. So that's why the relative power of adepts vs other gateway units is not on their radar. On the other hand, for zerg it's considered a real problem if players prefer roach-ravager over zergling-baneling, since the choices are more exclusionary.
I hate to see that Blizzard seems to think tankivacs are here to stay. It really is bandaid solution to it being weak and having lot more counters while forcing all tvt to be marine tank 100% of time with doom drop speeding around. Its a sore to watch.
It really is cause of singularity in tvt currently and problem with mech in other matchups as tanks are balanced around that
On January 09 2016 05:11 p4ch1n0 wrote: I think the speed change could only work if you make the game speed related to your mmr. So that the game becomes slowly faster and faster. Once you hit platin or something the gamespeed stays the same. The growth of speed should be almost not noticeable.
The game speed on the co-op missions is INFURIATINGLY slow. Not that they're any fun to play in the first place... every mission since WoL has been "destroy these three-five things that power this other thing."
I pray they don't implement this stupid game speed patch on the ladder. Every time I want to place in 2s with a friend or something I'll have to play dozens of games at below normal speed... ugh I'd honestly quit playing.
Let them nerf Photon Overcharge... maybe this will actually awaken the development team! After all, without PO to take extremely greedy thirds I have no idea how Protoss can actually win macro games.
On January 09 2016 05:15 p68 wrote: Ladder is very overwhelming for new players, especially with the economy changes. I'm not surprised that the community here would be against the game speed suggestion, but hopefully we can all agree that we could still do more to make the game more accessible at lower levels. We all want the game to grow a lot more than it has, that's for sure.
I think it would be better if the game was slowed down by 5% for all players, personally I feel like it's slightly too fast.
I play mostly online chess these days and there you can adjust the pacing of the game very easily by changing game time. It doesn't really split the community, since it's still the same form of chess and as long as queuing times are decent I feel better off with different choices, especially since skills translate so well. It's not like they're totally different forms of chess. Though timing sense in Starcraft is more important than for chess, so there the difference would be more jarring.
So for Starcraft we already have team games and archon and unranked, and it might seem dubious to add different game speeds, but I don't think it's a completely ridiculous suggestion. However, if part of the problem is that the game is too fast, period, then I think better is to just slightly reduce its speed instead of compromising by having different modes. Nevertheless any change like this should have been part of the expansion, not a patch addition. And having bronze-gold players on a different game speed seems really bad..
Also, another way to change pacing (imo) is different maps / resources for lower level players, but I think game speed can be a part of that. One could envision a sort of novice ladder played on smaller maps with easy to defend bases and such, dunno if it could be successful though, probably not though.
I think a separate unranked mode played on fast would be an okay thing to have but it shouldn't be part of the main ladder system imo. but anything to help out casual and low level players I am generally in favor of.
I think all the changes are good, except for the speed, I would want to play the game as the current speed so that I would get used to the timings and such, and that's coming from a Bronzer. I think that would also partially make us understand how cool pro games are with such timings and so on.
On January 09 2016 05:11 p4ch1n0 wrote: I think the speed change could only work if you make the game speed related to your mmr. So that the game becomes slowly faster and faster. Once you hit platin or something the gamespeed stays the same. The growth of speed should be almost not noticeable.
Then every timing in the game gets thrown off
Timings stay the same, right? Every unit and every building will take the exact same amount of ingame-time to build, bacause everything get slower/faster. But ofc your real world perception of timings will be off.
I don't think reducing the game speed is a good idea. maybe for Bronze players only it's okay though. I don't think silver and gold players that have been playing for a long time want a slower game speed.
First is that we have seen time and time again that it takes much more time to learn how to defend against attacks using new or changed units compared to the time it takes to learn how to execute the attacks
The reason for this is that the opponent limits his build order diversity and opts for 1-2 different builds that are safe and allow him to defend against it. That is, however, absolutely terrible game design. It is essential that overly strong early game units gets nerfed accordingly so players can opt for different types of openings.
I think that David Kim's reasoning leaves out some important details.
Given time the power level of any unit will be incorporated into standard assumptions about what the race is capable of, strategies will be built around it to the point that people can no longer imagine the game functioning without it. You see this all the time, Blizzard introduces something powerful and controversial, but they leave it in the game and when you suggest later on that it's too powerful you're berated for trying to cripple the race by removing an essential tool. So you can leave the adept as it is, the game will still function, but you'll just see adepts every single game as the cornerstone for every single strategy and you'll just be overly restricted in your own build orders by having to account for adept rushes all the time.
The take-away is that units are rarely OP, which in the common understanding only happens in two cases: unstoppable rushes (reapers) and unstoppable compositions (infestors). In both scenarios there is a problem with the win rates which hinges on the power of these units, that is to say it's clearly identifiable in the game flow that there is a direct link between the outcome of a game and certain things that these units enable. The adept is a somewhat generic army unit like the marauder, stalker or roach, by itself it can hardly decide games because you need to have the economy to back it up, they are still susceptible to certain counters, you can still outplay your opponent with harassment etc. It is not like the reaper where you could announce your rush before the game and even championship level players could not stop them and it is not like the infestor where your economy would cease to matter as long as you had a composition that could literally not be defeated. It's just a very powerful unit, like the medivac, but it's merely problematic, not gamebreaking.
And note David Kim's phrasing. First of all he incorrectly poses the question of OPness presumably to deflect from the question of whether it's correctly tuned and also he is so careful about committing to anything: the adept might or might not be too strong, it's impossible to tell, we can only wait and do nothing, but we'll pay close attention to the situation to see whether they literally break the game. He is the one that maybe incorrectly tuned the unit, but he's not really promising to do much about it, is he?
Actually I'd like for Blizzard to nerf Roach/Ravager, not because I think they are strong, but because I don't like Roaches and Ravager. I want to play Hydras and Banelings. Maybe they can nerf roach ravager and buff hydra baneling
On January 09 2016 05:20 jinjin5000 wrote: I hate to see that Blizzard seems to think tankivacs are here to stay. It really is bandaid solution to it being weak and having lot more counters while forcing all tvt to be marine tank 100% of time with doom drop speeding around. Its a sore to watch.
It really is cause of singularity in tvt currently and problem with mech in other matchups as tanks are balanced around that
Try mech. Mech is good against Marine/Tank. Marauders are the problem with mech, not marines.
It'd also be good if people built turrets to defend against drops.
Why not bring back the concept of "Practice Games" but instead of having rocks blocking your main entrance you play on a slower speed? Having a slower speed in actual ladder seems like a terrible idea.
First is that we have seen time and time again that it takes much more time to learn how to defend against attacks using new or changed units compared to the time it takes to learn how to execute the attacks
The reason for this is that the opponent limits his build order diversity and opts for 1-2 different builds that are safe and allow him to defend against it. That is, however, absolutely terrible game design. It is essential that overly strong early game units gets nerfed accordingly so players can opt for different types of openings.
Bingo.
There is almost never a build/strategy that can't be held. The influence of that build/strategy on the matchup can be too oppressive though.
First is that we have seen time and time again that it takes much more time to learn how to defend against attacks using new or changed units compared to the time it takes to learn how to execute the attacks
The reason for this is that the opponent limits his build order diversity and opts for 1-2 different builds that are safe and allow him to defend against it. That is, however, absolutely terrible game design. It is essential that overly strong early game units gets nerfed accordingly so players can opt for different types of openings.
I think that David Kim's reasoning leaves out some important details.
Given time the power level of any unit will be incorporated into standard assumptions about what the race is capable of, strategies will be built around it to the point that people can no longer imagine the game functioning without it. You see this all the time, Blizzard introduces something powerful and controversial, but they leave it in the game and when you suggest later on that it's too powerful you're berated for trying to cripple the race by removing an essential tool. So you can leave the adept as it is, the game will still function, but you'll just see adepts every single game as the cornerstone for every single strategy and you'll just be overly restricted in your own build orders by having to account for adept rushes all the time.
The take-away is that units are rarely OP, which in the common understanding only happens in two cases: unstoppable rushes (reapers) and unstoppable compositions (infestors). In both scenarios there is a problem with the win rates which hinges on the power of these units, that is to say it's clearly identifiable in the game flow that there is a direct link between the outcome of a game and certain things that these units enable. The adept is a somewhat generic army unit like the marauder, stalker or roach, by itself it can hardly decide games because you need to have the economy to back it up, they are still susceptible to certain counters, you can still outplay your opponent with harassment etc. It is not like the reaper where you could announce your rush before the game and even championship level players could not stop them and it is not like the infestor where your economy would cease to matter as long as you had a composition that could literally not be defeated. It's just a very powerful unit, like the medivac, but it's merely problematic, not gamebreaking.
And note David Kim's phrasing. First of all he incorrectly poses the question of OPness presumably to deflect from the question of whether it's correctly tuned and also he is so careful about committing to anything: the adept might or might not be too strong, it's impossible to tell, we can only wait and do nothing, but we'll pay close attention to the situation to see whether they literally break the game. He is the one that maybe incorrectly tuned the unit, but he's not really promising to do much about it, is he?
Oh yeah, also wanna say that this is an excellent analysis on a far spread community and blizzard perception on what is worth patching and what not.
EPT
