EPTI think Terran could be fine after this new proposed patch with just subsequent balancing. Maybe more nerfs/buffs are needed later, but at least gameplay looks like it will be much improved after this. You cannot expect balance just yet, with gameplay still needing obvious improvements.
Community Feedback Update - February 18 - Page 21
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
PressureSC2
122 Posts
I think Terran could be fine after this new proposed patch with just subsequent balancing. Maybe more nerfs/buffs are needed later, but at least gameplay looks like it will be much improved after this. You cannot expect balance just yet, with gameplay still needing obvious improvements. | ||
|
PressureSC2
122 Posts
On February 23 2016 00:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: In a game with Thor, Tempest, Lurker, Broodlord--the whine for lack of slow moving long range units is on the Siege Tank... Get your favoritism and nostalgia out of an actual discussion. How am I expressing favoritism more than you when I merely put attention to the fact that the unit with the most immobile "mode switch" (aside from PF), that has historically been very immobile in that mode (aka tradeoff) can now completely ignore the siege mode? Balance aside the gameplay is negatively impacted and this is the main reason to ditch tankivac. Balance considered, we are obviouly getting punished in other ways as terran for having flying siege mode, such as in having weaker factory tech to stop earlier all-ins, aggressive builds, etc. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On February 23 2016 05:33 PressureSC2 wrote: How am I expressing favoritism more than you when I merely put attention to the fact that the unit with the most immobile "mode switch" (aside from PF), that has historically been very immobile in that mode (aka tradeoff) can now completely ignore the siege mode? Balance aside the gameplay is negatively impacted and this is the main reason to ditch tankivac. Balance considered, we are obviouly getting punished in other ways as terran for having flying siege mode. First off--the tankivac strategy is not even new to Starcraft (let alone RTS as a genre) so its a little weird to point out tankivac as specifically "taking away" something. So when you say: I cannot think of any major RTS title that did not have at least one unit that was considered the "artillery" unit. The current state of the "tankivac" is to a great extent removing this "artillery" unit characteristic from the game. Its just not that genuine sounding. We already had reaver/shuttle in BW showing people love artillery pieces being carried around the map. But not just that--there is still a tonne of artillery units in the game that are slow moving just like the catapults you talked about in other RTS games. Your complaint is specifically that here is a specific playstyle that you want to allow a specific race to be able to employ in specific circumstances. That is not really an argument for anything outside of favoritism and nostalgia. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On February 23 2016 05:44 Naracs_Duc wrote: First off--the tankivac strategy is not even new to Starcraft (let alone RTS as a genre) so its a little weird to point out tankivac as specifically "taking away" something. So when you say: Its just not that genuine sounding. We already had reaver/shuttle in BW showing people love artillery pieces being carried around the map. But not just that--there is still a tonne of artillery units in the game that are slow moving just like the catapults you talked about in other RTS games. Your complaint is specifically that here is a specific playstyle that you want to allow a specific race to be able to employ in specific circumstances. That is not really an argument for anything outside of favoritism and nostalgia. The problem with tankivacs is that terran has a ton of medivacs anyway. There really isn't a decision to make more 'dropships' to use tankivacs, you have them no matter what if you play bio. In the end the medivac is the 'problem' pretty much. | ||
|
PressureSC2
122 Posts
On February 23 2016 05:44 Naracs_Duc wrote: First off--the tankivac strategy is not even new to Starcraft (let alone RTS as a genre) so its a little weird to point out tankivac as specifically "taking away" something. So when you say: Its just not that genuine sounding. We already had reaver/shuttle in BW showing people love artillery pieces being carried around the map. But not just that--there is still a tonne of artillery units in the game that are slow moving just like the catapults you talked about in other RTS games. Your complaint is specifically that here is a specific playstyle that you want to allow a specific race to be able to employ in specific circumstances. That is not really an argument for anything outside of favoritism and nostalgia. But Reavers, high templars and other slow moving AoE units do not unlock the splash damage when you CHOOSE to no longer be able to move the unit. They can always move. I have no issue with Thors being carried around. If Colossus had additional damage when you clicked an ability that made them immobile for 3-4 seconds (and more vulnerable to Marauders, etc.), and then you let them remain in that state while being shuttled around, that would be a similar problem (by analogy). Well, you can call it favoritism and/or nostalgia. I can accept that. But any decision to add/remove abilities would also have nothing to do with facts/math (you are not in the conclusions phase or reasoning), and will always be more of a question of preference. You can always compensate, or create a new ability instead. Imagination is your limit. I believe that playing Terran has been about mobility tradeoffs with the widow mine (HOTS), liberator (LoTV) and siege tank design. Removing that type of tradeoff from the tank and giving it mobility without choosing to hit that unsiege button (which comes with a risk to be calculated along with scans, etc.) is a very big change to a Terran basic mechanic that has been a part of Terran play for about 20 years. Maybe if you do not play TvT, you do not care if widow mines can relocated out of Medivacs already pre-burrowed, or if Liberators could fly around at full speed always in ground siege mode - but I can tell you that I would be equally upset with how those decisions would mess up positional strategy in TvT gameplay - just like the Tankivac change. | ||
|
petro1987
Brazil374 Posts
On February 23 2016 01:16 klup wrote: And when you will be witness of the 500 times TvT turtlemech mexican standoff duel that will be TvT after the patch, will you like it? To watch maybe as it will make caster expert in jokes and unrelated stories. But to play every single time you start a TvT on ladder you have to decide between cheese and mexican standoff...... I did 2 TvT last night master level on the test map the two matches were 1h15 long and were very slow paced with not much action except helion runbys and viking small trades. Tried to engage with marauder into small tank force got utterly shrekt. The problem with this patch is that it makes mech way too strong vs bio where in the end of Hots the matchup was already close to balanced. Today Bio is much more predominant than mech it is really embarassing but the changes proposed just turns the problem on the other side. I can't see anybody play bio after patch. It's just my opinion but I prefer marine tankivac vs marine tankivac to mech vs mech just for the duration of the games. More games, more fun, more iteration to improve your playstyle. How do you manage to play the test map? The balance test map is not available in my client. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On February 23 2016 05:44 Naracs_Duc wrote: Its just not that genuine sounding. We already had reaver/shuttle in BW showing people love artillery pieces being carried around the map. But not just that--there is still a tonne of artillery units in the game that are slow moving just like the catapults you talked about in other RTS games. Though people overwhelmingly dislike them. There are so many complaints about tempests, swarm hosts and mech that I find it perfectly understandable for Blizzard to decide to phase them out to a degree. Would the game be that much worse if all those artillery units (incl. lurker) were removed from the game? It would be less diverse and would lack certain play styles, the loss would be felt, yes. But would it be overall worse? Or would it be more consistent and more focused on what the majority of the player base enjoys the most? Action and movement and dynamics, that's what people find exciting and that's what allows players to show off their control skills. Artillery units might be strategically interesting, but they slow down the game and interrupt the momentum and they encourage unhealthy game dynamics that remove actions and decisions. There are many ways to interpret this, one would be to ask for Blizzard to create different game dynamics so that artillery units can function properly, but another way to frame it would be to say that Blizzard should focus on eliminating aspects of the game that the players dislike. Some personal background for this: when dota was first popularized in 2003 I thought it was distasteful for people to promote it since it was a dumbed down version of WC3 for people that considered macro an inordinately difficult task. History proved me wrong, since the current interpretation is that dota took a piece of core gameplay from WC3 that people enjoyed and built a fully realized new game around it. Applying this example to the SC2 situation you could say that the removal of artillery and space control caters to the core gameplay of action and micro that people find enjoyable. It's no longer the same game as BW, but it need not be worse because it appeals to a different audience. People say that they want space control and artillery units, but given the choice they don't like watching games that feature these units. Their actions do not support their stated beliefs, so it's tempting to theorize that this belief derives from sentiment rather than a fully realized conviction based on real world experience. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16021 Posts
On February 23 2016 06:58 Grumbels wrote: Though people overwhelmingly dislike them. There are so many complaints about tempests, swarm hosts and mech that I find it perfectly understandable for Blizzard to decide to phase them out to a degree. Would the game be that much worse if all those artillery units (incl. lurker) were removed from the game? It would be less diverse and would lack certain play styles, the loss would be felt, yes. But would it be overall worse? Or would it be more consistent and more focused on what the majority of the player base enjoys the most? Action and movement and dynamics, that's what people find exciting and that's what allows players to show off their control skills. Artillery units might be strategically interesting, but they slow down the game and interrupt the momentum and they encourage unhealthy game dynamics that remove actions and decisions. There are many ways to interpret this, one would be to ask for Blizzard to create different game dynamics so that artillery units can function properly, but another way to frame it would be to say that Blizzard should focus on eliminating aspects of the game that the players dislike. Some personal background for this: when dota was first popularized in 2003 I thought it was distasteful for people to promote it since it was a dumbed down version of WC3 for people that considered macro an inordinately difficult task. History proved me wrong, since the current interpretation is that dota took a piece of core gameplay from WC3 that people enjoyed and built a fully realized new game around it. Applying this example to the SC2 situation you could say that the removal of artillery and space control caters to the core gameplay of action and micro that people find enjoyable. It's no longer the same game as BW, but it need not be worse because it appeals to a different audience. People say that they want space control and artillery units, but given the choice they don't like watching games that feature these units. Their actions do not support their stated beliefs, so it's tempting to theorize that this belief derives from sentiment rather than a fully realized conviction based on real world experience. Not all long range space control/artillery units are bad. Tempests and swarmhosts, yes they are the pinnacle of bad unit design. But other units like lurkers, disrruptors, liberators or tanks create very interesting unit interaction and are overall really healthy for the game. Having a space control unit that you have to play around instead of just 1aing into promotes multitasking, action all around the map (because you can split your army up better without being just overrun) and makes decisionmaking more important. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17149 Posts
On February 23 2016 00:53 pure.Wasted wrote: No it isn't. Or rather - it might be when we're dealing with a ful mech army, but when we're talking about a tank or two defending an early Roach or Ravager timing, or a player just starting his mech transition - mech's most vulnerable phase - the buff is doubtless outweighed by the nerf. then express it in those terms. don't drop the context with a whitewash generalization. just for the record i have 1 account i play as terran and 1 account i play as random. let's just see how the new Tank works out before we start acting like terran players are burdened with more pain and suffering than the son of god. | ||
|
Nazara
United Kingdom235 Posts
People say that they want space control and artillery units, but given the choice they don't like watching games that feature these units. Their actions do not support their stated beliefs, so it's tempting to theorize that this belief derives from sentiment rather than a fully realized conviction based on real world experience. That could be the case because the game lacks randomness. There is no miss chance when shooting from the low ground. A lot of units do not overkill, even the artillery units themselves (Tank), where you would expect them to overkill the most. There's no Scarabs to bug out. Units don't block each other and derp like alcoholics on a night out, and move smoothly in orderly fashion like Russian army on a parade - in other words, the army movement looks the same in every game, every time, the one same blob of units. It's unattractive visually and boring after a while, compared to games where units can step on each other's toes and behave unexpectedly when moving around (but not as bad as retarded Dragoon).While randomness is most of the time frowned upon in RTS games, it produces uncertainty. Uncertainty, on the other hand, produces tension. Tension is great for any spectator sport - you want to see what happens next, and even if nothing happens for 2-5 minutes at all, you don't notice it at all, waiting for the big showdown. Yes, we would be back with the action quicker. But the tension and expectation would be gone as well. Ok, this may be not the best analogy. Actually it's pretty bad. Having artillery is no bad per se. But if there is no randomness, the outcome of most battles can be predicted with a good chance of getting it right, just by looking at the composition of units. That's why watching games that features artillery or "turtle friendly" units might be off putting. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17149 Posts
| ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On February 23 2016 07:27 Charoisaur wrote: Not all long range space control/artillery units are bad. Tempests and swarmhosts, yes they are the pinnacle of bad unit design. But other units like lurkers, disrruptors, liberators or tanks create very interesting unit interaction and are overall really healthy for the game. Having a space control unit that you have to play around instead of just 1aing into promotes multitasking, action all around the map (because you can split your army up better without being just overrun) and makes decisionmaking more important. There's actually nothing wrong with those two units from a design perspective. Long range flying unit, but expensive and has low DPS is, in the abstract, fairly interesting. A unit that spawns low power units that die over time--also not a bad design, in the abstract. The problem is not the design of the unit itself, but the design architecture of the race as a whole. Why does Zerg, the low cost high production high mobility race, get a long range siege unit that is good at controlling space? Why does protoss, the spellcasting heavy high damage high hitpoint race--get a fucking siege unit? Do you know what race would make sense having a long range siege unit that is good at controlling space? Terran. You know what race did not get that? Terran. The reason space control units are good is not because they are tautologically good--but because they exemplify and portray the idea of a faction's core strategic and flavor identity. | ||
|
Loccstana
United States833 Posts
| ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On February 23 2016 19:59 Loccstana wrote: What the siege tank really needs is a range buff. In Broodwar, tanks can hit from the left side of the screen to the right side. In SC2, you can only hit only about half a screen distance. This gives the attackers a huge advantage since they can see where the siege tanks are when they attack. Give siege tanks +5 range and suddenly they become useful again. Also another argument is that maps have gotten much bigger since 2010, yet the siege tank range is still the same as when maps were half the current size. Early game pushes will be so fun to deal with when tanks have +5 more range. No wall will ever protect you from terran!!! Let´s keep in mind that even tough people love the BW tank, we need to not break the game because of nostalgia. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16021 Posts
On February 23 2016 19:59 Loccstana wrote: What the siege tank really needs is a range buff. In Broodwar, tanks can hit from the left side of the screen to the right side. In SC2, you can only hit only about half a screen distance. This gives the attackers a huge advantage since they can see where the siege tanks are when they attack. Give siege tanks +5 range and suddenly they become useful again. Also another argument is that maps have gotten much bigger since 2010, yet the siege tank range is still the same as when maps were half the current size. +5 range is not enough. Some units could still come close enough to damage them. They should have at least +10 range so everything gets obliterated without doing anything. ... On a serious note, 18 range tanks would just be completely broken. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On February 23 2016 21:12 RaFox17 wrote: Early game pushes will be so fun to deal with when tanks have +5 more range. No wall will ever protect you from terran!!! Let´s keep in mind that even tough people love the BW tank, we need to not break the game because of nostalgia. It could be argued that tanks have a bit too much range in BW too. That said, tanks have relative less range in SC2 than in BW because other units tend to have more range and tend to breach the distance more quickly. Tanks also shoot faster though. | ||
|
dNa
Germany591 Posts
 | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On February 23 2016 08:30 Naracs_Duc wrote: There's actually nothing wrong with those two units from a design perspective. Long range flying unit, but expensive and has low DPS is, in the abstract, fairly interesting. A unit that spawns low power units that die over time--also not a bad design, in the abstract. The problem is not the design of the unit itself, but the design architecture of the race as a whole. I agree with that statement, I think in SC2 there is a problem since the beginning with DustinBrowder, that it is designed with a huge focus on individual units and not much understanding or attention given to the larger architecture of races it's a huge reason why things don't always make very good sense or work that well together and are a pain to modify with no clear direction.. Yes Day9 did ask DustinBrowder "what are you trying to do generally with races in terms of playstyle ?" in an interview and he answered after delaying with laugh for a few seconds "we're not trying to do anything with races in terms of playstyles we're just trying to make each unit that we create feel like they have potential to be really really cool" or something like that. Even when DK talks there is almost nothing more than details about this or that unit, maybe a little something about its interaction with this or that other unit, but no statements at all about the larger picture which is kinda the most important... other than "yeah so it should have a ++ or -- impact in that matchup and maybe a == impact in that other matchup so that's cool" | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On February 23 2016 23:33 dNa wrote: I hope today's pro league games showed Blizzard how great the new TvT is and tells all the lower league players complaining about it at the moment just to suck it up and learn how to properly play it. I can tell most people in lower leagues are just doing weird 1 base stuff instead of trying to play macro games because they just don't want to learn how to properly play with tankivacs. It would be really sad if this great mechanic gets patched out of the game because the community refuses to adapt ... This wouldn't be very smart. SC2 population is already small, you cannot say to lower league players(which is THE MAJORITY of the population) this. It would meant that more and more people would leave and as we can see not that many new players are coming. | ||
| ||
