EPTThis may put TvZ into a pretty bad position for zerg and i still don't think corrosive bile is the right thing to change for PvZ
Community Feedback Update - March 31 - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20322 Posts
This may put TvZ into a pretty bad position for zerg and i still don't think corrosive bile is the right thing to change for PvZ | ||
|
Hier
2391 Posts
Wait what? Zerg Attack Reticle We saw a post yesterday by aeJupiter about the Zerg attack reticle being incorrect. This post was exceptionally well-presented, and was also very helpful as the reticle’s appearance is indeed a bug! We’ll be looking to fix the reticle in an upcoming patch, thanks so much for pointing this out. The standards these days. | ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary404 Posts
it would be nice to have 4 configurable colors instead of current plans for 3: - my color (green) - teammates color (yellow) - first, third, fifth (every odd) opponents color (red) - second, fourth (every even) opponents color (red by default, i would change it to purple) all this fuss because of 2v2, so it would be green+yellow against red+purple. oh and one more thing for 2v2 (or any team): it would be nice to if the game would remember the 'control' setting while I'm in a party (who did I gave control to). | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On April 01 2016 07:27 Hier wrote: Wait what? The standards these days. I thought the same, i had to double check if he really meant that reddit post, but apparently he did  | ||
|
Elentos
55561 Posts
On April 01 2016 07:27 Hier wrote: Wait what? The standards these days. It's simple yet intricate in its design; it is easy to understand yet conveys all the information needed. Short and concise, not a single word was wasted. Unbelievable presentation, 10/10, would look at angry smiley again. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Not so happy about the liberator nerf, everything else that is being tested sounds valid. Having played the new maps some I have no idea why the community is in such an uproar about them. Korhal Carnage sadly seems to be really bad, the others are quite playable and feel very fresh to me. I also agree with David Kim's view on general map diversity. But I want to add that I'm missing gameplay changes to make that possible. Certain races - cough, cough Protoss - should be less reliant on gimmicks - mothershipcore - and more mobile instead of having suicidal high damage potential - adepts more run run, less blink blink; oracles more pew pew, less boom boom. Again, fully agree on diverse strategical challenges through maps, but Protoss is not robust enough in the early game for that and fails to keep up when they don't get to play on a map that doesn't cater to each and every of their special needs. | ||
|
Xenotolerance
United States464 Posts
On April 01 2016 03:32 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: First, out of top maps, the ones voted as the 1st place map, the 3rd place map, and the 4th place map don’t seem like standard maps to us, so the conclusions some people have drawn to say that everyone only likes standard maps seems to be inaccurate. What voting was this, what maps are they referring to? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 01 2016 07:40 Xenotolerance wrote: What voting was this, what maps are they referring to? There was a reddit thread. 1-3 were: Dusk, Orbital, Ulrena. | ||
|
seemsgood
5527 Posts
| ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
Wtf are they talking about. People are constantly refering to ultra standard maps when they blame the current ridiculous mappool. Daybreak for instance. And Dusk towers is overwhelmingly liked not because it's a macro map, but because it's the only one that doesn't favors stupid allins/abusive positionning/gimmicky plays. But if you want to balance your game, first make a standard mappool, and then encourage different plays by incorporating wackier maps. Dev team is doing this the wrong way : LOTV still having major flaws, people are just gonna get frustrated playing against gimmicks on wacky maps. So balance/redesign first, then encourage diversity. Balance map : - thor : why not. Will still be somewhat of a bad viking, but why not. - banshee : bullshit. Playing TvZ mech on ladder is already going straight into air. This will make this already gimmicky strat even stronger. - ravager : assured good thing ====> STILL NOTHING ABOUT MECH, THE SIEGE TANK/TANKIVAC, AND THE PvP DISRUPTOR VOLLEYBALL. WTF. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On April 01 2016 08:06 JackONeill wrote: Maps : Wtf are they talking about. People are constantly refering to ultra standard maps when they blame the current ridiculous mappool. Daybreak for instance. And Dusk towers is overwhelmingly liked not because it's a macro map, but because it's the only one that doesn't favors stupid allins/abusive positionning/gimmicky plays. But if you want to balance your game, first make a standard mappool, and then encourage different plays by incorporating wackier maps. Dev team is doing this the wrong way : LOTV still having major flaws, people are just gonna get frustrated playing against gimmicks on wacky maps. So balance/redesign first, then encourage diversity. Balance map : - thor : why not. Will still be somewhat of a bad viking, but why not. - banshee : bullshit. Playing TvZ mech on ladder is already going straight into air. This will make this already gimmicky strat even stronger. - ravager : assured good thing ====> STILL NOTHING ABOUT MECH, THE SIEGE TANK/TANKIVAC, AND THE PvP DISRUPTOR VOLLEYBALL. WTF. Everyone knows the problems are much more than the maps. Even they are aware... They tried to hide it, their just trying to use the maps as an excuse to make up for it... Look again at this statement... Second, we don’t understand how having 4+ similar maps in the ladder or tournaments can be a good thing. Due to the veto system in both official and automated tournaments, we’ve seen that if we go with only a few maps that are different, in some cases they might be vetoed out in every game except for the BO7 finals matches. That shows they know the truth. They know people simply don't like the maps to a point that they would veto all of the non-standard maps if they only had a handful. Their just trying to spin it... If they truly believed what they claimed - that it's "inaccurate that people like only the standard maps"... why would everyone veto ONLY the maps that are "different"??? That wouldn't even be an issue if people actually enjoyed playing on those maps! Yet again, they expose their obvious PR bull in their community updates... Months of community updates with endless discussion about maps, to get people distracted by that. So people don't notice that they haven't actually done a damn thing to improve the state of competitive multiplayer in 2 months, and have only done minor changes to 3 different units in 5 months. So much time spent talking and very little time spent doing... | ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
Furthermore, they pretend that they "don't understand" something as simple as "the game isn't in a good state : we want standard maps for the design issues to be exposed", with bullshit arguments. Take the TvT tankivac issue. If, on standard maps, every TvT revolves around tankivac, are they gonna put a map in the mappoll that's ultra mech favored to make TvT mech viable? That's really a fucked up way to solve this kind of issues, because it creates more issues than it solves. I try my best not to fall into the "their pride is making them throw the game out of the window" and "they're a bunch of incompetents" pits, but this level of PR bullshit is incredible, and hurting the game/community. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
for the record i think it's still too early to write off all the new maps as bad or unplayable, it's very likely, but people should experiment with new builds to the fullest extent. | ||
|
liberatorgtb
Andorra14 Posts
| ||
|
Solar424
United States4001 Posts
Due to the veto system in both official and automated tournaments, we’ve seen that if we go with only a few maps that are different, in some cases they might be vetoed out in every game except for the BO7 finals matches. I'm pretty sure that's a sign that people don't want "creative" maps. | ||
|
Hotshot
Canada184 Posts
On April 01 2016 07:27 Hier wrote: Wait what? The standards these days. Maybe Blizzard really loved the sad face, made it easy for them to understand  | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
Thors need to be tested with the change but keeping their splash damage. Then tune them back if it's too good. Single target thors i tested already, and the outcome vs mass tempests/carriers is the same as it is on the live version of the game: The thors lose versus carriers/tempest pretty easily when the Protoss "gets there." It honestly may be an issue with the tempest only costing 4 supply and being OP itself. The thor without splash will get destroyed by mutas extremely hard...single target...and the situation versus mass air does not change much at all. Overall, this is a backwards change for mech. Test it with the splash damage and damage increases and see how it does, so it can kill interceptors/carrier/tempest better. It's a bit absurd Protoss can just make 100% tempest/carrier and ground anti-air from mech does not compare whatsoever. | ||
|
seemsgood
5527 Posts
On April 01 2016 08:55 avilo wrote: Proposed thor change is currently a nerf to the unit. Thors need to be tested with the change but keeping their splash damage. Then tune them back if it's too good. Single target thors i tested already, and the outcome vs mass tempests/carriers is the same as it is on the live version of the game: The thors lose versus carriers/tempest pretty easily when the Protoss "gets there." It honestly may be an issue with the tempest only costing 4 supply and being OP itself. The thor without splash will get destroyed by mutas extremely hard...single target...and the situation versus mass air does not change much at all. Overall, this is a backwards change for mech. Test it with the splash damage and damage increases and see how it does, so it can kill interceptors/carrier/tempest better. It's a bit absurd Protoss can just make 100% tempest/carrier and ground anti-air from mech does not compare whatsoever. Yes it should be  You should try to play a normal game and find out does thor's buff is enough to creat a strong timing which can prevent straight air strategy rather this nonsense.... Problem with mech player's feedback is they only suggest one -side solution. If A player's army stronger than B player's army and you buff or nerf to the point B player can beat A player's army.So how can A player win ? See ? Design this game is not simple as you thought avilo. | ||
|
Ape_Island
29 Posts
and nerfing Terran in other areas if appropriate. T and Z wouldn't so easily advance to higher tiers perhaps. | ||
|
Tresher
Germany404 Posts
On April 01 2016 09:16 Ape_Island wrote: If Marauder were more powerful, wouldn't it solve much of these problems?; and nerfing Terran in other areas if appropriate. T and Z wouldn't so easily advance to higher tiers perhaps. So buffing Bio even more (while it actually needs to be toned down tbh) and nerfing other playstyles (read: Mech) even more? *buzzer sound* NO thanks! | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8zJdn2q.jpg)
