|
Mute City2363 Posts
On January 09 2016 05:35 p4ch1n0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2016 05:21 thecrazymunchkin wrote: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.
Yeah that's what I meant; you'd end up having no clue at all when upgrades / production cycles were finishing by feel alone
|
We should stop to talk about game speed. The difference between fast and faster is not only at minerals/minute income also fire attack, movements etc. Difference ist too drastically, I can tell that based on my 50 training ladder (fast) before ladder (faster) in WoL.
Maybe they should increase the path between hatch/nexus/CC and minerals at all places. So only minerals/minute income change for all leagues and esports.
|
On January 09 2016 05:47 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2016 05:10 Grumbels wrote:On January 09 2016 04:48 Hider wrote: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.
Another way to think about it that I figured is the following idea:
A race is either balanced, underpowered or overpowered. That is to say, if it's not precisely balanced then it is in fact imbalanced and requires intervention. On the other hand a unit can be weak or strong without being imbalanced, that only happens when it's too weak or too strong, there is much more leeway there. I think people are confused about that, or worse, they'll say nonsensical things like how they want all units to be strong when they really mean 'viable'.
|
They made too difficult game, so new players leave ladder after several loses. Just doing something to hold casual gamers.
Baneling speed increase sounds cool. My alternative suggestion is to give underground walk to banelings.
|
if they nerf photon overcharge, protoss is going to have a hard time.
protoss design is made over mothership core.
|
Blizzard, come on really? Late game TvZ you are really giving merit to claims "Terran is impossible to beat late game?" That is so absurd. What clandestine progamer club are you visiting for this "feedback?" There is NO way you can compare BL/Ultra/Viper to ANY late game composition in which Terran is superior. Liberator/ghost as a composition? I've seen that composition get wrecked so many times. In fact, I see Zergs simply going Bane/Ling to clear up ghost and then Corruptor/Viper to clean up the Liberators. They're letting this game die, while they sit on their butts contemplating nonsensical suggestions.
How is adept/warp prism not obvious? What else do you need to see? The fact that every Protoss I play, who executes this ridiculously OP cheese, that requires little skill, has a w/l of at least 75% TvP while their PvZ and PvP hovers around 50% should tell you something. There are "Patch" Protoss that should not be at their current rank, but instead, use this mindless build to erroneously increase their ladder/MMR. It's tantamount to the guy in WoL who got to GM by doing a 4-gate every game.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On January 09 2016 05:39 Tenks wrote:
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.
I completely forgot about those, I don't hate this as a solution instead.
|
On January 09 2016 06:12 nubHunter wrote:
if they nerf photon overcharge, protoss is going to have a hard time.
protoss design is made over mothership core.
I think it is less of nerf, but more a rebalance. Right now Protoss are spamming PO as soon as they see some units. Sometimes I attack with 6 zerglings and opponents uses pylon overcharge 4 times and I am not even in range ! I then back up and come again 15 seconds later but he has enough enery still !
It is more so they use it with more use of brain instead of just spamming it I think 
They sometimes even use 2 PO to kill overlord without a care in the world.
|
Photon overcharge should be nerfed for design reasons and that's their main reasoning:
"This is a change that seems correct right now, because we want to promote a more action packed game"
PO is too good against terran and discourages drops and scouting, however, thanks to the ravager being able to just blow up pylons I don't think they should change it without a ravager nerf of some kind.
I also want to know which pros are saying this: "Zerg having no chance due to Liberator/Ghost combo." TvZ games have almost all been 'try to kill the zerg before the late game'. We saw very WoL style all ins out of both Dream and Alive this morning doing just that. The only notable exception off the top of my head was that game Soulkey didn't build vipers.
|
the fact that there are pros that say ghost liberator is unbeatable for zerg is quite ridicolous.
Did they ask firecake for feedback?
|
I hope they are looking at maps too. I really want to see maps that can benefit defender's advantage so we see longer games with more bases and more chess like strategy.
|
On January 09 2016 06:19 Charoisaur wrote:
the fact that there are pros that say ghost liberator is unbeatable for zerg is quite ridicolous.
Did they ask firecake for feedback?
Ghost/Lib is handily beaten by Zerglings of all things. No ghosts will be getting off snipes if zerglings are on the field. I mean really, who did they talk to here? I think it is Catz.
|
On January 09 2016 05:59 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2016 05:47 Big J wrote:On January 09 2016 05:10 Grumbels wrote:On January 09 2016 04:48 Hider wrote: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. Another way to think about it that I figured is the following idea: A race is either balanced, underpowered or overpowered. That is to say, if it's not precisely balanced then it is in fact imbalanced and requires intervention. On the other hand a unit can be weak or strong without being imbalanced, that only happens when it's too weak or too strong, there is much more leeway there. I think people are confused about that, or worse, they'll say nonsensical things like how they want all units to be strong when they really mean 'viable'.
Yeah pretty much matches my thoughts. This is how I usually picture the balance of units within a race:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/G15HFrV.jpg)
This basically means that the "red unit" is overpowered in comparison to the "grey unit". If we are talking about racial balance all we care about is the blue line and what you and I are talking about is an issue of "design". However if we talk about the literal meaning of balance, i.e. the equality of things, this is very well an issue of the game.
It's a rather basic conception that is not widely applied in SC2, that for example a faster unit should usually be weaker in combat than a slower unit. A ranged unit should have less damage than a melee unit. A unit that can only attack ground should be stronger than a unit that can attack air and ground. If you want a high damage, high range unit this means it needs some severe trade-offs like low mobility and can only hit ground. Sometimes this is true, like for siege tanks, but then there are very often tools that can too easily circumvent those disadavantages without too much of an extra cost. Like the medivac pick up for tanks (the medivac is a unit you usually have anyways, it's not an extra investment for your tanks alone) or the adept shadow thingy to get rid of the ranged/mobility issues of a unit whose combat stats make sense without that.
|
Blizzard, can you think of something else besides trying to buff baneling move speed  . Why is it always move speed with you guys? Is it because it is something you think you can touch without modifying any other relationships? The result is that I can't even remember the days when a medivac didn't move 7000 mph...
|
On January 09 2016 06:21 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2016 06:19 Charoisaur wrote:
the fact that there are pros that say ghost liberator is unbeatable for zerg is quite ridicolous.
Did they ask firecake for feedback? Ghost/Lib is handily beaten by Zerglings of all things. No ghosts will be getting off snipes if zerglings are on the field. I mean really, who did they talk to here? I think it is Catz.
You'd think so in theory...but then you remember that Terran has been making marines and some sort of heavy splash all game long...no one is complaining about pure ghost liberator, that's a bit ridiculous.
The fact that ghost liberator can deny so many different compositions from Zerg is ridiculous. You've annihilated the threat of mutas, vipers, broodlords, ultras, lurkers (lol), basically any armored unit dies instantly, and you're under no threat of air attack at all.
So saying that you can just "make zerglings" is a bit ridiculous. You're not making zerglings as a stylistic choice or even because it's the best option --> you're making zerglings because literally nothing else is viable. You're making zerglings because there's nothing left to make.
And that's not good design.
|
I don't have much to say about balance.
But I think that they desperately need to change some stuff about protoss just to make it more fun to play with and/or at least play against. There is a pretty big lack of protoss from plat to master which I think could be because of this. Changing photon overcharge is good I guess but yeah.. it is pretty sad the game has to be balanced around an ability like that. The adept I think need some change as well but not sure how (personally I hate the shade ability but a lot of people seems to enjoy it, I guess most of the problems with the adept comes from warp gates anyway, just like almost everything else that is wrong with protoss).
I don't think they should nerf parasitic bomb, they should increase the others races anti air instead to make it even, tbh I don't think people realize just how detrimental air balls are to how fun this game will be.
This is no facts, just my thoughts.
|
Meh, one of the worst and non committed updates ever. It's like the PR department wrote it and not the guy responsible for balance and design.
Also Nidus and mech not even being mentioned.
|
I dont get it. Why have Lurker like no reason to be in ZvT? Instead of making the new units available, why buffing Wings of Liberty units?
|
Protoss is just not fun to play right now. Against Terran you HAVE to adept cheese while taking 3 bases and against Zerg you have to do some sort of timing attack that hits before Lurkers. PvP is the most fun Protoss matchup...
At least when I play Terran I know that if I fend off the Adepts until combat shields I can have some fun.
|
On January 09 2016 06:55 DinoMight wrote:
Protoss is just not fun to play right now. Against Terran you HAVE to adept cheese while taking 3 bases and against Zerg you have to do some sort of timing attack that hits before Lurkers. PvP is the most fun Protoss matchup...
At least when I play Terran I know that if I fend off the Adepts until combat shields I can have some fun.
In my personal opinion I have to heavily disagree.
As a Zerg I can't beat Protoss with Lurkers if they are good players. They build 2 observers and go Charge Zealot, Archon Immortal army and that crushes lurker easy.
Only time lurkers are good when you timing push with lurker or snipe observer. Otherwise Protoss army crush lurkers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
