|
Maps Update on Feb 9
To begin, we would like to thank everyone for the constructive feedback on the specific map changes. It’s great to see so many people making map-balance suggestions that uphold the goal of map diversity. It was also awesome to be able to stay focused, aligned, and work through the details in such a quick period of time.
Looking towards the future, we gained a lot of confidence about this map process after working through and locating solid suggestions with you. As we continue to push for map diversity, there will be maps that come up that have balance issues. When that happens, we can stay focused and aim to fix those balance issues as they come up without altering the cool factor of those maps.
As we’ve been discussing this week, there are several changes that will go into the maps:
Lerilak Crest – Replacing Rock Towers with Destructible Debris.
Prion Terraces – Changing the natural to a gold base and changing the 3rd to a normal base.
Central Protocol – Removing the back door to main bases and disabling vertical spawns.
Promoting Balance Test Maps
Recently, we tried having a landing screen take over when the Balance Test Map was up, and we were able to get a lot more testing on it. Going forward, we believe that polishing and iterating on this method looks to be the way to go. For example, if we were to add a button on the landing screen as well that players can just click to go directly into the balance testing channel, it could help a lot. The reason why we want to push this type of balance test map promotion over something like a match maker, is mainly due to the population of players out there who are willing to test. Because the population is not big enough to have skill based match making, the wait time will be very long and a majority of the time players won’t even get to test units properly due to a large skill difference between the players. On the other hand, promoting the test map and allowing players to arrange matches within the chat channel allows players to organize matches at their own pace, add test map partners for the future to your friends list, and/or discuss issues together as a group.
Still, we know this is something that you have requested, and we’re not saying that having a match maker is out of the question. If the interest and actual games that happen on the balance test map becomes big enough to support having a skill-based match maker, we can definitely discuss this option again. Until then, let’s focus on finding ways to improve this new approach that we’ve tried recently to get more and more people to play games on balance test maps!
Map Diversity Going Forward
We wanted to talk to those of you out there who are or will be participating in the map contest going forward.
Obviously, map diversity is something we must push for the game, because we’ve seen in the past that when all 7 maps in the pool were basically the same, we were only seeing 1 timing/strategy/build order per matchup and the game became stale really quickly.
The main thing we wanted to discuss on this front was the idea of perhaps identifying some archetypes of maps that should always be represented in the map pool. For example, say the rule was something like this: 1 macro map, 1 rush map, 1 high yield minerals exploration map, 1 completely new type of map, etc. This way, there are better guidelines and a bit better set expectation on the map pool as a whole for players, but we would be able to avoid the situation of having only 1 same type of map. Obviously, we’re not there yet because we don’t have 7 solid archetypes of maps to go by. Still, we believe one of our main goals for this year’s map creation could be to focus not only on creating unique and cool maps, but also to focus on locating solid, long-term map archetypes. The reason is that some map ideas only work for 1 season and then their cool factor wears off, and some map ideas will be ideas that can be explored for a long time in different ways.
Therefore, when you create maps for submission, please keep this in mind. If you come up with a new idea altogether, it doesn’t need to be perfectly executed. Alternatively, you could take an existing idea but re-use it in a better or cooler way. For example, if you like the idea of Ulrena but would like to submit an even better map of that type, it is definitely an option to just replace Ulrena with that new map without impacting the overall map diversity of the map pool.
These are just only our initial thoughts about how we could take this archetype concept, and we’re extremely eager to hear your thoughts. We’d love to see the diversity of map-types grow in a big way, so let us know what you think.
Balance
While it’s probably still too early to talk about what the next balance changes should be, here are our current thoughts:
- PvP Disruptors look to be really powerful again.
- We wanted to get your thoughts on potentially removing the +shield damage on Disruptors.
- This change is a very safe change that only affects 1 matchup, and we’ve tested this heavily already, so we can make this change to the live game if needed.
- Remove Siege Tank Medivac pick up – to help out in TvT
- We still also agree completely that this change will have a big impact on ZvT, and we would definitely combo this nerf with some sort of a mech buff. We could look into things many players have pointed out already such as: increasing Siege Tank damage slightly, making Cyclones stronger vs. Roach/Ravager combo, or bringing the Banshee speed upgrade down a tech level.
- Let’s definitely start discussing this one.
- TvP definitely looks to be better than before like many of you have also pointed out, but it looks to be too early to know for certain where this matchup has settled.
- We will need to keep a close watch on this one together, and react as needed.
- Just like the pro feedback we get, ZvT looks to be a good mix of even games with both sides looking really strong in various games.
We don’t have a lot going on this front this week because the balance patch was just last week, but there are definitely at least a couple topics we can already start working on. Other than the 2 immediate balance topics, if there are other critical issues please definitely bring those up and we can work together on locating what the best moves are for the next Balance Test Map
|
Canada8157 Posts
|
Quickly, end on a good note before they realize we've ignored PvZ completely!
Also... Gold Natural.
Okay.
So Terrans HAVE to fly their main over right? I might swich to Terran just to do that.
|
No comment on ultras? Didn't he see byun vs curious?
It's just bad design when two armies are trading even the entire game then suddenly ultras pop and it's gg.
it just feels like terran is playing on a timer every game
|
High damage siege tank plz.
Keep high damage, nerf attack cooldown if necessary.
Bring back what true mech is about (centred around the siege tank). Positional, powerful play.
|
On February 05 2016 07:06 DinoMight wrote:
Quickly, end on a good note before they realize we've ignored PvZ completely!
Also... Gold Natural.
Okay.
So Terrans HAVE to fly their main over right? I might swich to Terran just to do that.
It's not like the 3rd is further away by air than the natural.
|
On February 05 2016 07:12 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 07:06 DinoMight wrote:
Quickly, end on a good note before they realize we've ignored PvZ completely!
Also... Gold Natural.
Okay.
So Terrans HAVE to fly their main over right? I might swich to Terran just to do that. It's not like the 3rd is further away by air than the natural.
But you can wall of the natural.
|
On February 05 2016 07:13 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 07:12 Elentos wrote:On February 05 2016 07:06 DinoMight wrote:
Quickly, end on a good note before they realize we've ignored PvZ completely!
Also... Gold Natural.
Okay.
So Terrans HAVE to fly their main over right? I might swich to Terran just to do that. It's not like the 3rd is further away by air than the natural. But you can wall of the natural.
This. Flying to the exposed third has risks, flying to the natural doesn't.
|
Still no acknowledgement from Blizz about the state of PvZ? That makes me sad, nothing about Liberators either or Ultralisks.
I'm all for a Disruptor nerf, or better yet, full on removal. It's a poorly designed unit that should have been gone at beta stage honestly.
|
Canada8157 Posts
is it even worth it to float? you start with so many workers now that you hit max saturation much earlier, where's Sholip, we need some numbers :D
|
On February 05 2016 07:14 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 07:13 Musicus wrote:On February 05 2016 07:12 Elentos wrote:On February 05 2016 07:06 DinoMight wrote:
Quickly, end on a good note before they realize we've ignored PvZ completely!
Also... Gold Natural.
Okay.
So Terrans HAVE to fly their main over right? I might swich to Terran just to do that. It's not like the 3rd is further away by air than the natural. But you can wall of the natural. This. Flying to the exposed third has risks, flying to the natural doesn't.
You can wall the 3rd base too. That's how Gangnam Terran worked on Dash & Terminal. Also it's probably not even worth it to float with a 12 worker start.
|
Okay, DK, superconstructive as to not demotivate your team:
Tank pickup can be changed. Nice change would be to drop the tanks unsieged, but still allow them to be picked up in Siege mode. The main scary interaction is Siege Tank vs Ravager All Ins from Zerg. I think buffing Siege Tank damage could be a way to go, but experimenting with an Armored tag on Ravagers might also work.
For PvT, I really dislike the opening phase where Terran HAS to play hyperdefensive and cannot really attack with anything other than Mine Drops, have you considered making Overcharge a (distinguishable) upgrade at Cycore? If Protoss wants to play defensively, they can get this upgrade, and the opponent can see this, so they won't have to fear Warpgate aggression.
Making Disruptors so they dont one shot full health stalkers sounds awesome.
And please have a look at PvZ. It's been avoided like the plague but could probably considered the most problematic matchup.
Ciao!
|
Floating is back boys! LOTV Hype!
|
On February 05 2016 07:06 DinoMight wrote:
Quickly, end on a good note before they realize we've ignored PvZ completely!
Also... Gold Natural.
Okay.
So Terrans HAVE to fly their main over right? I might swich to Terran just to do that.
Or CC first into 8-9 rax marine.
|
On February 05 2016 07:17 SC2Toastie wrote:
Okay, DK, superconstructive as to not demotivate your team:
Tank pickup can be changed. Nice change would be to drop the tanks unsieged, but still allow them to be picked up in Siege mode. The main scary interaction is Siege Tank vs Ravager All Ins from Zerg. I think buffing Siege Tank damage could be a way to go, but experimenting with an Armored tag on Ravagers might also work.
For PvT, I really dislike the opening phase where Terran HAS to play hyperdefensive and cannot really attack with anything other than Mine Drops, have you considered making Overcharge a (distinguishable) upgrade at Cycore? If Protoss wants to play defensively, they can get this upgrade, and the opponent can see this, so they won't have to fear Warpgate aggression.
Making Disruptors so they dont one shot full health stalkers sounds awesome.
And please have a look at PvZ. It's been avoided like the plague but could probably considered the most problematic matchup.
Ciao!
PvZ is problematic? Odd, because i watch protoss win against zerg constantly. Why are so many people ignoring that? Ravager with Armor tag was hilarious: They disappeared instantly.
|
Disruptor change for PvP sounds awesome. Allows for more diverse gameplay, and maybe I can actually use the new Colossi skin now!
I think the state of PvZ and PvT both need to settle a bit after adept change, but I feel like PvZ is pretty god damn hard for P and could use some tweaking now that the two greatest advantages of P over Z have been nerfed. Too early to say, but I hope for more updates on these topics in the future.
EDIT: There's discussion about adding an armor tag to Ravagers...I think this would be pretty awful. I mean, Immortals would just wreck ravagers so hard, and tanks would pop them like big Zerg balloons.
|
Remove +shields on disruptors
YES
Considering removing tankivac
YES
Considerations on maps
meh. The pidgeonhole maps idea just sets my teeth on edge. Why not try to actually have different playstyles viable for every race on every map so that the game creates variety by itself, not only thanks to maps ?
|
Give tanks +6 flat damage and change upgrades from 3+2 each to 2+3 each.
Makes tanks kill most zerg and toss units in 1 shot less while keeping the amount of shots required to kill marines the same, even when fully upgrade.
Also making banshee speed easier to access (and cheaper) wouldn't be so bad, banshee are barely used at all anyway. Can you imagine a build where terran goes speed banshee vs toss? that would be pretty exiting.
|
On February 05 2016 07:27 Lexender wrote:
Give tanks +6 flat damage and change upgrades from 3+2 each to 2+3 each.
Makes tanks kill most zerg and toss units in 1 shot less while keeping the amount of shots required to kill marines the same, even when fully upgrade.
Tank damage buff doesn't really address any issues with the game at the moment.
Lifting them makes TvT unplayable.
Not lifting them makes Ravagers kill them too easily.
Removing Ravagers' ability makes Zerg too weak to Liberator rushes.
A series of bad designs just outdoing each other...
|
Please please don't change disruptors. It's okay to have some units that come up a lot, and the macro disruptor games are really skillful and entertaining.
Tankivacs, I don't really care. I was excited at first because I thought TvP might be too good for T after the two nerfs; that hasn't happened yet, so I have no opinion on this.
Pretending PvZ doesn't exist: great idea! You should totally pursue this, nobody will notice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
