|
On January 09 2016 06:58 A_needle_jog wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Nobody just makes Lurkers though. There's always Lurkers + Hydras. Without splash damage Hydras are really strong vs. P.
|
On January 09 2016 07:01 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2016 06:58 A_needle_jog wrote: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. Nobody just makes Lurkers though. There's always Lurkers + Hydras. Without splash damage Hydras are really strong vs. P.
I sent you private message. please don't share that tactic, because that would destroy my winrate versus P haha
|
Well I think Blizzard needs to prioritize fixing the most broken things first. Remove the stackable damage on parasitic bomb and the invulnerability of nydus worms.
Leave the rest of game for now.
|
On January 09 2016 07:07 A_needle_jog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2016 07:01 DinoMight wrote:On January 09 2016 06:58 A_needle_jog wrote: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. Nobody just makes Lurkers though. There's always Lurkers + Hydras. Without splash damage Hydras are really strong vs. P. I sent you private message. please don't share that tactic, because that would destroy my winrate versus P haha
Thats the problem: Bad Protoss player cant handle Lurker. Thats why they nerfed and trashed them X times. Making them useless in ZvT and a pain in the ass to play in PvZ. Its really sad.
|
Different game speeds would be a horrible idea. All timings would be different from what you see in pro games. How could you learn what was good? I love the reduced time to play games - I normally only get an hour to play, so can now often get 6 games in. Making the games take longer would be rubbish.
I'm currently gold, been plat, and I don't see any reason I'd want to slow the game down. I'd rather focus on speeding up than learning a bad habit I'd need to break each time I break back into plat
|
On January 09 2016 06:25 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2016 05:59 Grumbels wrote: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.
I agree with most of your post, but this part I'm not sure about.
How does unit responsiveness factor into unit strength? You mention that slow units should be stronger than fast units, but slow units tend to be melee and/or A+move types, e.g. Thors and Ultralisks. By ignoring unit skill floor and ceiling, we end up with shitty situations like WoL bio vs LBM, where Banes didn't even need to split and so engaging as a Zerg was infinitely mechanically easier than engaging as a Terran.
|
Thanks for the input!
Photon Overcharge Energy Cost Increase
Still believe this is more of a coverage problem rather than a time problem. If the MSC movement speed was slower it would require the Protoss to position the MSC correctly rather than the current state of just reacting when they see a threat.
Adept
Adepts are too strong, no doubt at the moment the biggest issue is the time dealing with them and Protoss is abusing this like crazy which is why they are able to take an early 3rd safely with no defending units except the MSC. When a group of adepts is in your base they are too much of a threat to move out, thus players must defend until they have a reasonable economy, enough to push and to defend against warp prism adept drops. Adepts are just buying too much time currently.
Roach/Ravager Combo
Not sure on this one.
Parasitic Bomb Nerf
Not sure on this one.
Multiplayer Game Speed
Great idea, anything that helps casual players get into the scene is awesome.
|
Make swarm host useful , or replace it with another unit
|
Against Terran you HAVE to adept cheese while taking 3 bases
Adept cheese? As in build a few adepts + robo and take a much faster 3rd?
How is that cheese and why isn't that fun? I owned tons of master league terrans with this opening and it was very microrewarding as well.
|
On January 09 2016 07:26 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2016 06:25 Big J wrote:On January 09 2016 05:59 Grumbels wrote: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: 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. I agree with most of your post, but this part I'm not sure about. How does unit responsiveness factor into unit strength? You mention that slow units should be stronger than fast units, but slow units tend to be melee and/or A+move types, e.g. Thors and Ultralisks. By ignoring unit skill floor and ceiling, we end up with shitty situations like WoL bio vs LBM, where Banes didn't even need to split and so engaging as a Zerg was infinitely mechanically easier than engaging as a Terran.
For one I'm talking about the pure strategical/design conceptions here when it comes to the powerlevel of units in comparison to others when used properly.
But for the other, every properly designed unit should just scale well with skill to begin with. This is the very basic concept of designing a competitive, skillbased game. A unit that isn't skill-reliant just shouldn't be in a competitive RTS game. (which is a question of interactions and sometimes hard to blame on the unit itself)
Assuming that it still exists or one wants to have units in the game that are "at a level with well-controlled units in a combat" would be a positive trait that again would need to be balanced off in some way, like say that unit had just lower mobility than a harder to use unit of the same kind had.
Like, for every trait that a unit is above average, it needs a trait that it is below average. You could see it as a sum of some kind: If your unit is much above average on speed, it may need to be much below average on damage. Or on range. Or a little bit of both. If it wants a (powerful) ability, it may need to have (very) weak stats of some kind.
It really doesn't matter that much how you trade it off for the unit in comparison to another one, what matters is in what relation it stands to the other units in the game. But if you have a jack-of-all trades and then 5 types of specialists you will naturally have gameplay that is limited to making as much of the joat and only support it with the other units if absolutely necessary.
|
Game speed discussion indicates, what I expected and what I experienced. retention among new and/or returning players must be abysmal.
Self-selected sample: me, former Gold league random player, stopped laddering ~3 years ago. With LotV I came back, did exactly one placement game, left again. Game is too quick, hate the economy changes. Friend, who never was much into ladder, even stopped after playing vs AI games. Speed reduction would bring players like me and him back - at least for a while, but I have no doubts it would be very bad for those going for plat promotion.
On balance, purely from a spectator viewpoint. PvZ is in a disgusting state, Zerg nerfs are not needed now, they were needed at least a month ago. Waiting for the dust to settle is acceptable when balance is somewhat off, not when one matchup is in its worst state it was in five+ years. Kim seems to be too involved to get balance right. He needs a mathematician or statistician, who doesn't care about the game at all, just about numbers, to tell him at least in which direction to go.
|
I vote for faster game speed on all levels, game is much cooler at that speed anyway (might wanna speed up mining)
|
Does the word Ultralisk vanish on the blizzard staff meetings?
|
On January 09 2016 08:07 MiCroLiFe wrote:
Does the word Ultralisk vanish on the blizzard staff meetings?
Look at it differently mate.
Yes Ultralisk the unit is strong, but good players won't let you get them. I know they are a problem in lower leagues like platinum and diamond, but just look at the korean games the last couple of days.
If a Zerg is able to go to Ultralisk then you already failed as a Terran. I don't think I have seen a single Ultralisk in todays 9 matches ZvT.
In my honest opinion if Blizzard nerfed the Ultralisk then TvZ is a dead matchup. I could see terran winrate of over 65% in TvZ (good players/koreans) if ultralisk was nerfed alongside all the other zerg nerfs they already announced.
|
I really like the idea of lower-level players like myself being able to play on lower speeds. It would make the game less stressfull and more enjoyable, and open it more to casual players.
The implementation has to be made with care though, so other players looking for the "classic feeling" are not punished. These are my suggestions:
- Plat/Gold players should be able to choose speed between fast and fastest, with fast by default in gold and fastest in plat.
- Bronce/silver players able to choose from normal/fast/fastest with normal by default in bronce, and fast in silver.
- Match-making should favor similar speed selection
- If finally the speed selection of both players does not match, the speed that is the default for the highest league would be favored (vs diamond always fastest, high bronce vs low plat in fast, etc.)
|
Korean pros opinion on lower level players gets attention ? What do they know about players in gold ?
I hope low level player opinion on Korean pros gets attention then.
That's weird.
|
On January 09 2016 08:15 A_needle_jog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2016 08:07 MiCroLiFe wrote:
Does the word Ultralisk vanish on the blizzard staff meetings? Look at it differently mate. Yes Ultralisk the unit is strong, but good players won't let you get them. I know they are a problem in lower leagues like platinum and diamond, but just look at the korean games the last couple of days. If a Zerg is able to go to Ultralisk then you already failed as a Terran. I don't think I have seen a single Ultralisk in todays 9 matches ZvT. In my honest opinion if Blizzard nerfed the Ultralisk then TvZ is a dead matchup. I could see terran winrate of over 65% in TvZ (good players/koreans) if ultralisk was nerfed alongside all the other zerg nerfs they already announced.
The "good players won't let you get Ultras" idea makes no sense to me from a design point of view. Transitions should be possible, and the unit is there to be played. But the transition by itself should not dictate the whole game, or mean you have won the game unless your rival has already x unit out that hard-counters it. Both ultras and ghosts are too extreme for me.
Also your phrase sounds very similar to others I read during the Broodlord-infestor era...
|
On January 09 2016 08:15 A_needle_jog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2016 08:07 MiCroLiFe wrote:
Does the word Ultralisk vanish on the blizzard staff meetings? Look at it differently mate. Yes Ultralisk the unit is strong, but good players won't let you get them. I know they are a problem in lower leagues like platinum and diamond, but just look at the korean games the last couple of days. If a Zerg is able to go to Ultralisk then you already failed as a Terran. I don't think I have seen a single Ultralisk in todays 9 matches ZvT. In my honest opinion if Blizzard nerfed the Ultralisk then TvZ is a dead matchup. I could see terran winrate of over 65% in TvZ (good players/koreans) if ultralisk was nerfed alongside all the other zerg nerfs they already announced.
while it's true that current ultras are needed to maintain balance I think the current interaction with ultras vs liberator/ghost is terrible and the most extreme form of hardcounters the game has seen yet.
If ultras are out and you don't get the necessary units out in time - or you get them out but the zerg takes them out because you mismicroed - the game is over, no matter if you have completely outplayed your opponent until this point or if it's 6 base terran vs 1 base zerg.
|
On January 09 2016 08:31 Xamo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2016 08:15 A_needle_jog wrote:On January 09 2016 08:07 MiCroLiFe wrote:
Does the word Ultralisk vanish on the blizzard staff meetings? Look at it differently mate. Yes Ultralisk the unit is strong, but good players won't let you get them. I know they are a problem in lower leagues like platinum and diamond, but just look at the korean games the last couple of days. If a Zerg is able to go to Ultralisk then you already failed as a Terran. I don't think I have seen a single Ultralisk in todays 9 matches ZvT. In my honest opinion if Blizzard nerfed the Ultralisk then TvZ is a dead matchup. I could see terran winrate of over 65% in TvZ (good players/koreans) if ultralisk was nerfed alongside all the other zerg nerfs they already announced. The "good players won't let you get Ultras" idea makes no sense to me from a design point of view. Transitions should be possible, and the unit is there to be played. But the transition by itself should not dictate the whole game, or mean you have won the game unless your rival has already x unit out that hard-counters it. Both ultras and ghosts are too extreme for me. Also your phrase sounds very similar to others I read during the Broodlord-infestor era...
By the way: In case you ABSOLUTLY CANT COUNTER ULTRALISKS: You already lost the game. You missed the transition into Ghost and/or Vikings. You missed to secure additional bases. You were allin on bio
|
On January 09 2016 08:07 MiCroLiFe wrote:
Does the word Ultralisk vanish on the blizzard staff meetings?
Actually Korean Terran's are able to handle Ultra's fine. They have started to adapt and transition so their counters are out by the time Ultralisks are out.
Honestly late game TvZ seems fine to me. The difference between release of LOTV zvt (where literally once I got to late game I won 100000% ez pz) and now is way different. Late game zvt is no longer a guaranteed win (unless I am just so far ahead).
Of course it hasn't been shown enough in GSL for other Terran's to realize this and continue to QQ about a non existent problem.
Bio + ghosts + liberators is a pretty good late game composition and with the parasitic bomb nerf incoming it will become even stronger  .
Also for the Terran's that sit on their butts, don't do any harass and then complain they get crushed, well you need to be dropping, pushing back creep and not just letting Zerg do whatever they want. In a lot of my zvt's on NA it's insane how passive they are going CC first into skipping hellions and not doing much harass until it's too late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
