|
On March 09 2016 22:15 Hider wrote:
The consequence is that David Kim comes out as lacking analytical skills, which I believe is true. Nothing he has written indicates that his analysis goes deeper than "I like actionpaced harass play, let's buff it".
To be fair, we do not know the exact reason why some of us are displeased with their approach. Maybe they have the analytical skills, but not enough resources put into development at this stage to apply the skills? Maybe everything is too investor driven and low-risk nowadays, which means they can no longer produce the greatest games - only those titles that sell well upon release?
With this particular community update, one thing that seems certain is that there is a lack of desire, for some reason, to to make this game (as opposed to the spectating) the greatest RTS ever based on its actual production.
|
On March 09 2016 22:19 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +When they came up with the tankivac everyone said it would change the nature of the siege tank and would create very obnoxious harassment and would make TvT even less positional To be fair, it's not that simple. TvT tank + marine isn't less positional than it was in HOTS. However, the issue is that it makes it much harder to control the units, which significantly raises the learning barrier, and opportunites for a ton of small mistakes that costs you the game. And from their perspective, if they nerfed Siege tank pick up, Ravagers would be overpowered; hence they needed to be sure that Ravagers should be nerfed as well.
You are right. But, this is 1995 technology, thinking and creativity that needs to be applied here. And it can all be done with a good sized community on test maps. Get knocked down from your horse, get back in the saddle type of testing.
The goal is not to develop the first virtual reality RTS on console.
|
Czech Republic12134 Posts
On March 09 2016 22:21 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 22:18 deacon.frost wrote:On March 09 2016 22:15 Hider wrote:Does he think that selling false hope will keep some people attached to the game in some sort of fallow the carrot move? If anything, this sort of thing creates more negativity around the game and ends up hurting their feelings Well from his perspective; If he said "Guys I hate tank-based mech, and I am not gonna make it viable", he would receive a lot more unpopular opinions. Thus he chooses to go for the PR-strategy. But in reality the issue is that he is too narrowminded/simplistic in his analysis. He doesn't seem to be capable of explaining the factors that makes mech too turtly and discuss how to make siege tank based mech more interesting; as it was in BW late game. Something to praise about Riot's community feedback is that its actually much less bullshitty. They will argue why they want to see a certain change and explain why other solutions aren't viable/possible. Blizzard cannot do this, Blizzard is working with 300k population. They have to approach much carefully. Losing 50k people is nothing for Riot. Losing 50k people is huge for Blizzard. Riot doesn't lose anyone by doing this though. They are explaining their thought proces and typically they end up receiving a ton of positive feedback. They win by doing this. I am trying to find a recent example where I actually disagreed with the Riot designer, but he still comes out as reasonable (and not an idiot). EDIT: Here is an example. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sobp97Here is the reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/473kff/balance_team_member_smashgizmos_rebuttal_to/The highest upvoted (726) comment is this: Show nested quote +I really think riot needs more people who aren't afraid to just tell us "You're just wrong because x, y and z" every so often like this. And note that just 1-2 days before he made this comment, there was a massive circlejerk against the nerf.
Is there a source for your saying they are not losing players based on their balance changes? I mean do they release statements saying "we lost 30k people who are no longer logging after patch x.y.z but we received new 50k people, so it's OK, right?". SC2 population was declining in the past and the difference between the end of HotS and LotV is around +60k. (I checked nios in January I think and it was around 300k 1v1 players vs. 240k HotS(before LotV release)). That's not much room for testing what is good or not.
I am at work, I really cannot search for lol player base statistics or some other shit like that.
|
To be fair, we do not know the exact reason why some of us are displeased with their approach. Maybe they have the analytical skills, but not enough resources put into development at this stage to apply the skills
If you have analytical skills, community feedfeedback provides an excellent opportunity for demonstrating those skillsets. Why would a designer want to come out as being dumb instead of brilliant? Noone gains anything as people are more likely to follow and play a game if they think the game designer is smart.
Is there a source for your saying they are not losing players based on their balance changes?
This isn't about balance changes (as I said I dislike the actual change, and I don't think making LOL more hardcounter based is positive for the playerbase). But rather it's about how you explain your reasoning for changes/lack of changes.
DK strategy: PR where he tries to deceive people into thinking he is actually testing other suggestions while giving bullshit reasons for a change/lack of.
Riot strategy: Throughouly explains the reasons behind the decision.
|
On March 09 2016 21:34 JackONeill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 21:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 09 2016 21:22 JackONeill wrote:On March 09 2016 21:03 Hider wrote:Wow so much moaning, seriously? I'm one of the biggest balance whiners myself, but isn't David trying really hard to please the scene?
No it's PR. Look at what he said 1-2 weeks ago on the tank buff. Something about "we want to make them more immobile to create the Siege Tank fantasy". What would have made him change his mind from the last community feedback to this one? Most likely nothing changed, and I don't believe for a second DK actually believed what he wrote there. He doesn't like Siege Tank mech and he demonstrates that with this Community feedback (and he said so in interviews previously). Further, clearly loves the high skill cap of pick up micro so Siege Tank pickup was always going to stay. It was just a PR move so he can tell fans "oh we tried to test your solutions, they just didn't work out". I noticed a lot of the changes where DK opts for extreme solutions in these community feedbacks, and each time I think to myself "no way", and every time I end up being correct. Also look at all the times he write "we'v seen your feedback on xx, we agreed with your feedback on xx". He uses that quote so many times just to show us that he reads stuff. But if he really cared about feedback, a proper and interesting way to play mech in all 3 matchups would have existed. I agree with you. But what really bothers me is that DK and his team crossed the line of not making sense anymore. Well, actually they did during the beta with the 30 dmg zealot charge, but as a terrible singer once said, "oops, they did it again". The very idea of "biomech", "mixed armies", is actually bio with facto/SP support, which is the norm since WOL. I mean pure bio NEVER worked, excepted for MKP in WoL and Maru in HOTS. And now, we can read "lol go banshee with bio i dunno can be cool lol". Diversity in LOTV, for the terran race, is the wonderfull choice to go for bio liberators, or bio tank. Such interesting diversity. I used to be concerned, and discuss the community feedback at length. But now I just get angry at the total absence of logic in these posts. There's also bio with and combination of hellion/hellbat, widow mines and ghosts and vikings as well. Oh and some pro games mix it up with thors vs ultras. And bio consists of 3 different units. But I guess there isn't enough diversity there. But yeah PR man is PR man. Bio with a combination of hellion/hellbat is a allin/timing attack. Bio with ghosts... is bio. Mines and vikings are used with bio since HOTS and WOL, nothing new here. So the idea that the comps are now "mixed" is BS. "And bio constits of three different units" : wooow, such diversity. Just look at protoss. Every unit in the protoss army has a role, and can be used in every MU except PvP. And just watch pro games. TvT : marine tankivacs TvP : bio mines => bio liberators (+ vikings sometimes) TvZ : bio tanks/bio mines => bio liberators My prediction : this isn't gonna change. Ever. Because bio needs support units that compensate for the bio's weaknesses. You won't be able to go anything but bio tanks or bio mines in TvZ because you need AoE, for instance.
Just today Alive was using hellion/hellbats in his bio army along with widow mines against Losira as a standard army. Really though, calling all the various combinations of playstyles and unit compositions of everything as bio is getting really tiresome. You are calling all the various combinations of marine, maurader, medivac, widowmine, widow mine, viking, ghost as bio in your post. Absurd.
|
On March 09 2016 22:05 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 11:04 Superbanana wrote:
It does bother me that they are so slow and insecure about changes
For instance, why does Blizzard need months to be able to make a decision on the siege tank? A designer supposedly spending 40 hours a week on improving SC2 ought to be a bit embarrassed if that time is spent tentatively considering failed idea after failed idea for the siege tank without concrete results for like a month. When they came up with the tankivac everyone said it would change the nature of the siege tank and would create very obnoxious harassment and would make TvT even less positional. All of this happened. Now six months later Blizzard is like: "hm, it seems that this hasn't quite worked out the we way we had hoped (prayed) for, so let's take a few more months to consider what to do about it". Wow, so inspiring. Meanwhile SC1 & SC:BW were made in like a year and a half in total and they still have more well thought out design decisions than SC2 after 10 years of development (with SC:BW as a template to work from!)
Wasn't it obvious that the community updates weren't meant as sudden change in policy and community participation, but rather as a feel-good move that shows they care?
If we could evaluate the number of community suggestions that made it through the community updates to be considered that weren't already considered by blizzard I think we would find a pretty circular number on the other side.
Let me give a few examples of things that were showcased by blizzard as community suggestions:
individual overlord drops: the obvious solution to buff zerg drops without overpowering mass overlord drops. That one, or make overseers the dropship.
Tank unsiege when loaded up: wasn't that originally a blizzard suggestion "if tank drops were to be too strong" that wasn't tested in the beta and now gets thrown around as if the community came up with it.
Adept damage -1: sure, we came up with it. It's not like, you know, blizzard gave the adept 10(+13 vs light) for the exact purpose of two-shoting SCVs and marines. Nono, that just happened to happen. 
I mean, we are talking about some of the best paid and most prestigeous jobs in game design in the whole world. The feedback threads are there to create a resonance, to lead the discussion of the game and prevent negativity and to sell us their ideas as our own. They are not there to fundamentally change the game. They have proven they could do that through betas and expansions. The only reason they don't is that they don't want to.
(that still means I like the feedback threads as a source of acquiring knowledge and insights)
|
On March 09 2016 22:15 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Does he think that selling false hope will keep some people attached to the game in some sort of fallow the carrot move? If anything, this sort of thing creates more negativity around the game and ends up hurting their feelings Well from his perspective; If he said "Guys I hate tank-based mech, and I am not gonna make it viable", he would receive a lot more unpopular opinions. Thus he chooses to go for the PR-strategy. But in reality the issue is that he is too narrowminded/simplistic in his analysis. He doesn't seem to be capable of explaining the factors that makes mech too turtly and discuss how to make siege tank based mech more interesting; as it was in BW late game. Something to praise about Riot's community feedback is that its actually much less bullshitty. They will argue why they want to see a certain change and explain why other solutions aren't viable/possible. The consequence is that David Kim comes out as lacking analytical skills, which I believe is true. Nothing he has written indicates that his analysis goes deeper than "I like actionpaced harass play, let's buff it".
Something I've seen from them is that they design philosophy seems to be (in part) to deviate as far from BW as they can without getting flak, from the overall feel of the races (terran being about bio instead of mech, protoss about big expensive units in contrast to pure gateway, although they are deviating from this, zerg having more powerful lategame units and less about the swarm feeling, altough they still have some)
My biggest guess is that they want SC2 to be many things at once (appealing to casuals and hardcore fans, as different from BW as they can while also engaging as many BW fans, being more fast but also more accesible) and all of this without getting to much heat from the community.
They simply don't really know what they really want with the game, they have ideas of how they want it to be but are not too sure on the direction.
I wish they where at least honest, if they just hated mech from the beggining and simply did it to appeal to the fans they should simply said "hey mech sucks,stop asking for it" instead of teasing us and then throws awaylater.
|
Tank unsiege when loaded up: wasn't that originally a blizzard suggestion "if tank drops were to be too strong" that wasn't tested in the beta and now gets thrown around as if the community came up with it.
I suggested it on a battlenet forum 3 years ago as a countermeasure to Blinding cloud in HOTS beta. So clearly it was my feedback they were using. 
|
On March 09 2016 22:37 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Tank unsiege when loaded up: wasn't that originally a blizzard suggestion "if tank drops were to be too strong" that wasn't tested in the beta and now gets thrown around as if the community came up with it. I suggested it on a battlenet forum 3 years ago as a countermeasure to Blinding cloud in HOTS beta. So clearly it was my feedback they were sourcing.
Not to mention tank pick ups where something they borrowed from Starbow
|
On March 09 2016 22:21 Vanadiel wrote:
Oh I would be in perfect agreement to have agressive mech viable while turtle mech not. I just don't think it's possible in Starcraft 2, given the overall design of the game, of the layout of the maps, the IA, pathing and so on. I'll add that if we have mech as strong as bio, then the synergy of the two would make it too strong, and thus, even if pure mech could be made viable (which I do not believe), it would needs to sacrifice BIO for it.
We have 5 threads every week explaining how to mech great again, but those have never been convincing. Not to me at least, and apparently to Blizzard as well.
This guy is right. The inherent design of SC II will always make it, that a "agressive mech" might be strong, but a "turtle mech" will be much stronger.
Why?
Bio has a serious problem when it comes from 100 to 200 supply. The more Bio you have, the more splash hits them in main fights and thus makes the fights harder. If you go for a multi point fight, high amount of drops, many fights all over the map with parts of your army, you dont have the problem that one splash attack wipes out the Bio. But you need stellar control to do that, something, we might see from Maru. But nothing we see outside of that box. 99.99% of the Bio players cant play the multi point attack play at 200 supply. And most of the rest will fuck it up, overcommitting one side ofter another. Only a very small number of korean terrans (and online Marinelord) are able to play that style.
On the other hand, you have mech. They dont care about splash form other races, siegetanks outrange splash by far, Thors are loling about splash and helion/helbat are cheap fucks you dont care (and they still survive decent amount of splash attacks). When your mech army becomes bigger, it does not become more vulnerable. It loses one core point of why Bio 200 has weaknesses that aggressive Bio 100 has not. The secound point is that Mech is played as ball, there is no multi point mech play. It will never exists, it is all about that one push to death (or high damage). Following this, Mech 200 is WAY easier to controll then Bio 200. Following this, you mech 100 cant have strenghts that will lead to weaknesses with Mech 200. Players will turtle to Mech 200 no matter what, as it is the best way to win, even when Mech 100 would be viable.
The design of SC II does not allowed a agressive mech to happen, as a trutle mech will always be more viable. In LotV 3 Base echo still gives 1700*6 Gas and 1500*4*3 + 750*4*3 Minerals, the most agressive mech will ever be is pushing out to secure more bases. But mech 100 with agressive style is a non existing myth that will never exists in SC II meta.
And when people say "6 years of Bio is enough!!!". Did you sleep during hots? Mech was common style in HotS in TvT and TvZ and after the SH patch it became the dominant style in TvZ for a year.
|
On March 09 2016 22:37 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 22:37 Hider wrote:Tank unsiege when loaded up: wasn't that originally a blizzard suggestion "if tank drops were to be too strong" that wasn't tested in the beta and now gets thrown around as if the community came up with it. I suggested it on a battlenet forum 3 years ago as a countermeasure to Blinding cloud in HOTS beta. So clearly it was my feedback they were sourcing. Not to mention tank pick ups where something they borrowed from Starbow
Yeh that was also my suggestion. It never really fitted the BW-clone version of Starbow, whereas it made a bit more sense in earlier versions of the mod.
That said; I do think a long delay is a better solution than unsieging so I agree with DK there. I just want the game to also be balanced around a strong and cost efficient siege tank.
I wish they where at least honest, if they just hated mech from the beggining and simply did it to appeal to the fans they should simply said "hey mech sucks,stop asking for it" instead of teasing us and then throws awaylater.
They don't have to say that directly though. What they could say on the other hand is that they don't want to see turtle mech being viable so they will be carefully about buffing the Siege Tanks. But they will listen to suggestions/try to make tests them selves to see if they can come out with something that makes for a more engaging mech play.
On top of that, they should also explain what they previously have tested when it comes to mech, and why it hasn't worked out + provide feedback to other mech suggestions. For instance, I actually agree with Avilo that groundbased mech should be the counter to tier 3 air. Air > Air creates for terrible games. It would be nice to see what they thought about that.
TLDR; Be honest and drop the bullshit, and replace it with more analysis/explanations
|
On March 09 2016 22:37 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 22:37 Hider wrote:Tank unsiege when loaded up: wasn't that originally a blizzard suggestion "if tank drops were to be too strong" that wasn't tested in the beta and now gets thrown around as if the community came up with it. I suggested it on a battlenet forum 3 years ago as a countermeasure to Blinding cloud in HOTS beta. So clearly it was my feedback they were sourcing. Not to mention tank pick ups where something they borrowed from Starbow
Obviously. It's not like there is an editor value for cargo size, which was set to 0 (= can't be picked up) for the siege tank. As like the only ground unit. The guys who implemented that mega-exception into SC2 probably never thought why they did it and what would happen if they didn't. It obviously took Starbow for the designers to realize that they purposely created that exception and to play around with the value.
|
On March 09 2016 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 21:34 JackONeill wrote:On March 09 2016 21:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 09 2016 21:22 JackONeill wrote:On March 09 2016 21:03 Hider wrote:Wow so much moaning, seriously? I'm one of the biggest balance whiners myself, but isn't David trying really hard to please the scene?
No it's PR. Look at what he said 1-2 weeks ago on the tank buff. Something about "we want to make them more immobile to create the Siege Tank fantasy". What would have made him change his mind from the last community feedback to this one? Most likely nothing changed, and I don't believe for a second DK actually believed what he wrote there. He doesn't like Siege Tank mech and he demonstrates that with this Community feedback (and he said so in interviews previously). Further, clearly loves the high skill cap of pick up micro so Siege Tank pickup was always going to stay. It was just a PR move so he can tell fans "oh we tried to test your solutions, they just didn't work out". I noticed a lot of the changes where DK opts for extreme solutions in these community feedbacks, and each time I think to myself "no way", and every time I end up being correct. Also look at all the times he write "we'v seen your feedback on xx, we agreed with your feedback on xx". He uses that quote so many times just to show us that he reads stuff. But if he really cared about feedback, a proper and interesting way to play mech in all 3 matchups would have existed. I agree with you. But what really bothers me is that DK and his team crossed the line of not making sense anymore. Well, actually they did during the beta with the 30 dmg zealot charge, but as a terrible singer once said, "oops, they did it again". The very idea of "biomech", "mixed armies", is actually bio with facto/SP support, which is the norm since WOL. I mean pure bio NEVER worked, excepted for MKP in WoL and Maru in HOTS. And now, we can read "lol go banshee with bio i dunno can be cool lol". Diversity in LOTV, for the terran race, is the wonderfull choice to go for bio liberators, or bio tank. Such interesting diversity. I used to be concerned, and discuss the community feedback at length. But now I just get angry at the total absence of logic in these posts. There's also bio with and combination of hellion/hellbat, widow mines and ghosts and vikings as well. Oh and some pro games mix it up with thors vs ultras. And bio consists of 3 different units. But I guess there isn't enough diversity there. But yeah PR man is PR man. Bio with a combination of hellion/hellbat is a allin/timing attack. Bio with ghosts... is bio. Mines and vikings are used with bio since HOTS and WOL, nothing new here. So the idea that the comps are now "mixed" is BS. "And bio constits of three different units" : wooow, such diversity. Just look at protoss. Every unit in the protoss army has a role, and can be used in every MU except PvP. And just watch pro games. TvT : marine tankivacs TvP : bio mines => bio liberators (+ vikings sometimes) TvZ : bio tanks/bio mines => bio liberators My prediction : this isn't gonna change. Ever. Because bio needs support units that compensate for the bio's weaknesses. You won't be able to go anything but bio tanks or bio mines in TvZ because you need AoE, for instance. Just today Alive was using hellion/hellbats in his bio army along with widow mines against Losira as a standard army. Really though, calling all the various combinations of playstyles and unit compositions of everything as bio is getting really tiresome. You are calling all the various combinations of marine, maurader, medivac, widowmine, widow mine, viking, ghost as bio in your post. Absurd.
Bio = The majority of your army composition is mobile.
Mech = The backbone of your army composition is immobile/positional
That's how most people perceive it and the reason most people want mech to be viable is that it adds for a very different playing experience than bio. On the other hand whether you go hellbat + bio, raw bio or bio + mines doesn't change that much in the game dynamic.
From the perspective of the designer, the goal should be to try and figure out how to make both playing experiences fun to play, watch and play against. DK on the other hand is like "Mech, that's lame we saw that in HOTS, I don't want that". He is dismissing it instead of trying to figure out how to make it more interesting.
|
I agree that air versus air end-games are very stale. It renders the map design, boundaries, ledges, choke points, concave - all of it neutralized.
I would much prefer the rock paper scissors that is: Air > Pure Ground > AA Ground (tier 2.5/3) > Air
Much more interesting scouting/interaction and decision making, etc. The dream is that mech could be designed as such - as Avilo and others have stated.
|
On March 09 2016 22:51 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 09 2016 21:34 JackONeill wrote:On March 09 2016 21:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 09 2016 21:22 JackONeill wrote:On March 09 2016 21:03 Hider wrote:Wow so much moaning, seriously? I'm one of the biggest balance whiners myself, but isn't David trying really hard to please the scene?
No it's PR. Look at what he said 1-2 weeks ago on the tank buff. Something about "we want to make them more immobile to create the Siege Tank fantasy". What would have made him change his mind from the last community feedback to this one? Most likely nothing changed, and I don't believe for a second DK actually believed what he wrote there. He doesn't like Siege Tank mech and he demonstrates that with this Community feedback (and he said so in interviews previously). Further, clearly loves the high skill cap of pick up micro so Siege Tank pickup was always going to stay. It was just a PR move so he can tell fans "oh we tried to test your solutions, they just didn't work out". I noticed a lot of the changes where DK opts for extreme solutions in these community feedbacks, and each time I think to myself "no way", and every time I end up being correct. Also look at all the times he write "we'v seen your feedback on xx, we agreed with your feedback on xx". He uses that quote so many times just to show us that he reads stuff. But if he really cared about feedback, a proper and interesting way to play mech in all 3 matchups would have existed. I agree with you. But what really bothers me is that DK and his team crossed the line of not making sense anymore. Well, actually they did during the beta with the 30 dmg zealot charge, but as a terrible singer once said, "oops, they did it again". The very idea of "biomech", "mixed armies", is actually bio with facto/SP support, which is the norm since WOL. I mean pure bio NEVER worked, excepted for MKP in WoL and Maru in HOTS. And now, we can read "lol go banshee with bio i dunno can be cool lol". Diversity in LOTV, for the terran race, is the wonderfull choice to go for bio liberators, or bio tank. Such interesting diversity. I used to be concerned, and discuss the community feedback at length. But now I just get angry at the total absence of logic in these posts. There's also bio with and combination of hellion/hellbat, widow mines and ghosts and vikings as well. Oh and some pro games mix it up with thors vs ultras. And bio consists of 3 different units. But I guess there isn't enough diversity there. But yeah PR man is PR man. Bio with a combination of hellion/hellbat is a allin/timing attack. Bio with ghosts... is bio. Mines and vikings are used with bio since HOTS and WOL, nothing new here. So the idea that the comps are now "mixed" is BS. "And bio constits of three different units" : wooow, such diversity. Just look at protoss. Every unit in the protoss army has a role, and can be used in every MU except PvP. And just watch pro games. TvT : marine tankivacs TvP : bio mines => bio liberators (+ vikings sometimes) TvZ : bio tanks/bio mines => bio liberators My prediction : this isn't gonna change. Ever. Because bio needs support units that compensate for the bio's weaknesses. You won't be able to go anything but bio tanks or bio mines in TvZ because you need AoE, for instance. Just today Alive was using hellion/hellbats in his bio army along with widow mines against Losira as a standard army. Really though, calling all the various combinations of playstyles and unit compositions of everything as bio is getting really tiresome. You are calling all the various combinations of marine, maurader, medivac, widowmine, widow mine, viking, ghost as bio in your post. Absurd. Bio = The majority of your army composition is mobile. Mech = The backbone of your army composition is immobile/positional That's how most people perceive it and the reason most people want mech to be viable is that it adds for a very different playing experience than bio. On the other hand whether you go hellbat + bio, raw bio or bio + mines doesn't change that much in the game dynamic. From the perspective of the designer, the goal should be to try and figure out how to make both playing experiences fun to play, watch and play against. DK on the other hand is like "Mech, that's lame we saw that in HOTS, I don't want that". He is dismissing it instead of trying to figure out how to make it more interesting.
Maybe consider a race change, when you want a fresh and other "playing experience". I heard Zerg and Protoss play quite different from terran Bio.
|
I would much prefer the rock paper scissors that is: Air > Pure Ground > AA Ground (tier 2.5/3) > Air
Yeh with regards to air, I think it can be divided into two categories:
1. Mobile air units (typical light armor and massable) --> Should be countered by mobile ground units (like stalkers/marines) and could be supported by other mobile AA air units. For instance I think the Viking/Liberator should be merged into one and be massable mobile air units.
2. Somewhat slower but more cost efficient air units (typically massive)--> Should be countered by lower mobility/medium mobility ground units. E.g. look at how the Goliath functioned in BW. In Sc2 the Thor should counter Broodlords/Carriers/Tempests/BC's (though the Tempest needs a complete redesign in my opinion).
This way the Viking/Corrupter isn't used to counter enemy massive tier 3 units. Instead that could become the role of the Hydralisk or maybe open up a role for a new Zerg unit that is somewhat immobile/positional that can kill massive units.
|
Bio = The majority of your army composition is mobile.
Mech = The backbone of your army composition is immobile/positional
This is true - but to go further the reason that it is important for Terran to have different "styles", and not just an equal production of all types of units, is that we must commit quite heavily to only one of the following:
Double EB upgrades into 9+ Barracks; - OR -
Double Armory upgrades into 5+ Factories
If you truly want mixed army play - do you combine all weapon upgrades (vehicle + infantry) and armor upgrades (vehicle + infantry), as well as delete the factory from the game entirely and just have all ground vehicles come out from the nine barracks?
How do you get around this so that most of your production buildings create 3-3 units in the late game?
|
On March 09 2016 22:52 PressureSC2 wrote:
I agree that air versus air end-games are very stale. It renders the map design, boundaries, ledges, choke points, concave - all of it neutralized.
I would much prefer the rock paper scissors that is: Air > Pure Ground > AA Ground (tier 2.5/3) > Air
Much more interesting scouting/interaction and decision making, etc. The dream is that mech could be designed as such - as Avilo and others have stated.
Then you should start that quest by giving capital ships and similar units like liberators a different purpose. There are air units whose main, or even only, purpose is to counter ground units.
If you want this to turn around, those air units need a different purpose - and it somehow needs to fit the balance and dynamics of the game.
|
On March 09 2016 22:56 Clonester wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 22:51 Hider wrote:On March 09 2016 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 09 2016 21:34 JackONeill wrote:On March 09 2016 21:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 09 2016 21:22 JackONeill wrote:On March 09 2016 21:03 Hider wrote:Wow so much moaning, seriously? I'm one of the biggest balance whiners myself, but isn't David trying really hard to please the scene?
No it's PR. Look at what he said 1-2 weeks ago on the tank buff. Something about "we want to make them more immobile to create the Siege Tank fantasy". What would have made him change his mind from the last community feedback to this one? Most likely nothing changed, and I don't believe for a second DK actually believed what he wrote there. He doesn't like Siege Tank mech and he demonstrates that with this Community feedback (and he said so in interviews previously). Further, clearly loves the high skill cap of pick up micro so Siege Tank pickup was always going to stay. It was just a PR move so he can tell fans "oh we tried to test your solutions, they just didn't work out". I noticed a lot of the changes where DK opts for extreme solutions in these community feedbacks, and each time I think to myself "no way", and every time I end up being correct. Also look at all the times he write "we'v seen your feedback on xx, we agreed with your feedback on xx". He uses that quote so many times just to show us that he reads stuff. But if he really cared about feedback, a proper and interesting way to play mech in all 3 matchups would have existed. I agree with you. But what really bothers me is that DK and his team crossed the line of not making sense anymore. Well, actually they did during the beta with the 30 dmg zealot charge, but as a terrible singer once said, "oops, they did it again". The very idea of "biomech", "mixed armies", is actually bio with facto/SP support, which is the norm since WOL. I mean pure bio NEVER worked, excepted for MKP in WoL and Maru in HOTS. And now, we can read "lol go banshee with bio i dunno can be cool lol". Diversity in LOTV, for the terran race, is the wonderfull choice to go for bio liberators, or bio tank. Such interesting diversity. I used to be concerned, and discuss the community feedback at length. But now I just get angry at the total absence of logic in these posts. There's also bio with and combination of hellion/hellbat, widow mines and ghosts and vikings as well. Oh and some pro games mix it up with thors vs ultras. And bio consists of 3 different units. But I guess there isn't enough diversity there. But yeah PR man is PR man. Bio with a combination of hellion/hellbat is a allin/timing attack. Bio with ghosts... is bio. Mines and vikings are used with bio since HOTS and WOL, nothing new here. So the idea that the comps are now "mixed" is BS. "And bio constits of three different units" : wooow, such diversity. Just look at protoss. Every unit in the protoss army has a role, and can be used in every MU except PvP. And just watch pro games. TvT : marine tankivacs TvP : bio mines => bio liberators (+ vikings sometimes) TvZ : bio tanks/bio mines => bio liberators My prediction : this isn't gonna change. Ever. Because bio needs support units that compensate for the bio's weaknesses. You won't be able to go anything but bio tanks or bio mines in TvZ because you need AoE, for instance. Just today Alive was using hellion/hellbats in his bio army along with widow mines against Losira as a standard army. Really though, calling all the various combinations of playstyles and unit compositions of everything as bio is getting really tiresome. You are calling all the various combinations of marine, maurader, medivac, widowmine, widow mine, viking, ghost as bio in your post. Absurd. Bio = The majority of your army composition is mobile. Mech = The backbone of your army composition is immobile/positional That's how most people perceive it and the reason most people want mech to be viable is that it adds for a very different playing experience than bio. On the other hand whether you go hellbat + bio, raw bio or bio + mines doesn't change that much in the game dynamic. From the perspective of the designer, the goal should be to try and figure out how to make both playing experiences fun to play, watch and play against. DK on the other hand is like "Mech, that's lame we saw that in HOTS, I don't want that". He is dismissing it instead of trying to figure out how to make it more interesting. Maybe consider a race change, when you want a fresh and other "playing experience". I heard Zerg and Protoss play quite different from terran Bio.
Not realistic as the learning curve when playing a new race is pretty high.
|
On March 09 2016 23:02 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 22:56 Clonester wrote:On March 09 2016 22:51 Hider wrote:On March 09 2016 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 09 2016 21:34 JackONeill wrote:On March 09 2016 21:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 09 2016 21:22 JackONeill wrote:On March 09 2016 21:03 Hider wrote:Wow so much moaning, seriously? I'm one of the biggest balance whiners myself, but isn't David trying really hard to please the scene?
No it's PR. Look at what he said 1-2 weeks ago on the tank buff. Something about "we want to make them more immobile to create the Siege Tank fantasy". What would have made him change his mind from the last community feedback to this one? Most likely nothing changed, and I don't believe for a second DK actually believed what he wrote there. He doesn't like Siege Tank mech and he demonstrates that with this Community feedback (and he said so in interviews previously). Further, clearly loves the high skill cap of pick up micro so Siege Tank pickup was always going to stay. It was just a PR move so he can tell fans "oh we tried to test your solutions, they just didn't work out". I noticed a lot of the changes where DK opts for extreme solutions in these community feedbacks, and each time I think to myself "no way", and every time I end up being correct. Also look at all the times he write "we'v seen your feedback on xx, we agreed with your feedback on xx". He uses that quote so many times just to show us that he reads stuff. But if he really cared about feedback, a proper and interesting way to play mech in all 3 matchups would have existed. I agree with you. But what really bothers me is that DK and his team crossed the line of not making sense anymore. Well, actually they did during the beta with the 30 dmg zealot charge, but as a terrible singer once said, "oops, they did it again". The very idea of "biomech", "mixed armies", is actually bio with facto/SP support, which is the norm since WOL. I mean pure bio NEVER worked, excepted for MKP in WoL and Maru in HOTS. And now, we can read "lol go banshee with bio i dunno can be cool lol". Diversity in LOTV, for the terran race, is the wonderfull choice to go for bio liberators, or bio tank. Such interesting diversity. I used to be concerned, and discuss the community feedback at length. But now I just get angry at the total absence of logic in these posts. There's also bio with and combination of hellion/hellbat, widow mines and ghosts and vikings as well. Oh and some pro games mix it up with thors vs ultras. And bio consists of 3 different units. But I guess there isn't enough diversity there. But yeah PR man is PR man. Bio with a combination of hellion/hellbat is a allin/timing attack. Bio with ghosts... is bio. Mines and vikings are used with bio since HOTS and WOL, nothing new here. So the idea that the comps are now "mixed" is BS. "And bio constits of three different units" : wooow, such diversity. Just look at protoss. Every unit in the protoss army has a role, and can be used in every MU except PvP. And just watch pro games. TvT : marine tankivacs TvP : bio mines => bio liberators (+ vikings sometimes) TvZ : bio tanks/bio mines => bio liberators My prediction : this isn't gonna change. Ever. Because bio needs support units that compensate for the bio's weaknesses. You won't be able to go anything but bio tanks or bio mines in TvZ because you need AoE, for instance. Just today Alive was using hellion/hellbats in his bio army along with widow mines against Losira as a standard army. Really though, calling all the various combinations of playstyles and unit compositions of everything as bio is getting really tiresome. You are calling all the various combinations of marine, maurader, medivac, widowmine, widow mine, viking, ghost as bio in your post. Absurd. Bio = The majority of your army composition is mobile. Mech = The backbone of your army composition is immobile/positional That's how most people perceive it and the reason most people want mech to be viable is that it adds for a very different playing experience than bio. On the other hand whether you go hellbat + bio, raw bio or bio + mines doesn't change that much in the game dynamic. From the perspective of the designer, the goal should be to try and figure out how to make both playing experiences fun to play, watch and play against. DK on the other hand is like "Mech, that's lame we saw that in HOTS, I don't want that". He is dismissing it instead of trying to figure out how to make it more interesting. Maybe consider a race change, when you want a fresh and other "playing experience". I heard Zerg and Protoss play quite different from terran Bio. Not realistic as the learning curve when playing a new race is pretty high.
Really? I think it is pretty easy to learn Zerg. (Comming from Bio Terran). Protoss is a harder nut cause of the important timings, the production and the compositions, but Zerg was very easy to learn for me (and also to control). Much easier then my tries with mech in HotS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
