|
On April 09 2016 03:33 RavingRaver wrote:
The liberator/banshee changes is the worst idea I have seen in a very long time. The banshee cannot fill in the role for the liberator in controlling space. All it will do is force Terran to become a more gimmicky, harassment race more than anything. I think the liberator nerf and banshee buff is just going to make Terran become underpowered mostly in TvP and somewhat in TvZ. It's a mistake, just like the widow mine nerf of 2013, but the balance team is determined to repeat the same mistake for some reason.
Agreed. On top of that it's just a straight nerf in tvp since banshees are useless there
|
thanks for clarifying your thinking behind maps. please ignore the excessive whining that goes on. i don't mind getting my head kicked in during a game because i don't fully understand the map. its part of the fun of the game and learning the intricacies of a new map is fun.
i got no problems making the Banshee stronger, but please weaken some other Terran air units. I've said this before and i'll repeat it. Please weaken Terran Air and strengthen Terran ground.
disclaimer: i play as Terran and Random.
|
Where are they getting their hypothetical positive feedback on the banshee change that they keep talking about? Liberator requires skill to use and skill to counter. Having one player have to futilely chase a fast banshee is just stupid. You'll never kill it unless the other guy has to do something else.
Also, why change overlord drops instead of their terrible nydus design?
|
United States572 Posts
On April 09 2016 03:39 Lexender wrote:
That being said, they really REALLY need to buff the siege tank not only for mech (a change that is needed almost if not more than the thor one) but also to compensate for the lib nerf. And I mean actuall buff like the proposed 40 damage change or something along those lines, not the useless 0.3 second attack buff back in HotS. (Wich was nice then but not enoug in this situation).
0.2 second attack buff. 2.7 second cooldown tanks were too OP to ever see the light of day 
|
Another week with disapointing results
|
still can't believe people think dusk turtles is a good map
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On April 09 2016 04:54 -NegativeZero- wrote:
still can't believe people think dusk turtles is a good map
It's one of the more balanced and more importantly stable maps.
The only matchup that's statistically off in TLPD is PvT, where protoss tends to lose more than usual - but they also tend to take their natural and third base pretty safely, i guess losing in fights and map control afterwards.
|
I'm still amazed by the level of bullshit blizzard display. They're still stalling. Amazing.
The idea for terran is pretty clear : positional play is boring, and WE NEED MORE HARASSMENT AND WORKER HARASSMENT.
I can't process the level of stupidity of this update. Banshees and liberators are absolutely not fitting comparable roles. Bio/banshee is never gonna happend. Banshee speed upgrade is gimmicky and ridiculous already, and trying to make it standard is a whole new level of stupid.
|
Rip overlord drops 
|
On April 09 2016 03:59 CyanApple wrote:theres a huge difference between having 5 maps of that type or only 1. i think what most people want is to have atleast 3-4 "almost standard maps" in the map pool as in dusk towers, orbital shipyard or ruins of seras Edit: a few lines later, they actually say they only want 1-3 "experimental" maps. lets hope they have a proper definition of "experimental"
lol... of course they dont. Last week they try to claim all the maps people like are "standard", then next update they did away with "standard" as a title. Now they are using "experimental" - a title that is even less descriptive. To put it simply, now argument's can't use "labels" against them, so they have more freedom to do w/e they want.
Also note, they only thing they said about the non-experimental maps is that they "don't want them to be the same type"... what do you think that means? lol
|
On April 09 2016 04:58 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 04:54 -NegativeZero- wrote:
still can't believe people think dusk turtles is a good map It's one of the more balanced and more importantly stable maps. The only matchup that's statistically off in TLPD is PvT, where protoss tends to lose more than usual - but they also tend to take their natural and third base pretty safely, i guess losing in fights and map control afterwards.
Balance doesn't have anything to do with it. Ulrena is as balanced as Dusk Towers. It's just that most of the maps lean towards aggression while Dusk Towers leans very very hard towards turtling, which people like since it allows them to do their own thing without having to worry about the opponent.
I'm with -NegativeZero- here I don't think it's a good map. It's made to seem good due to the rest of the map pool and players liking the easy option.
|
Please stop with this stupid Banshee shit, why turn the game back to the times when protoss death balls late game were so insane you had to kill P early or die. If you keep nerfing terran (especially the only strong core they have atm) while buffing stuff that is utterly useless in direct engagements you turn the game into an imbalanced mess.
Are you trying to make it so that the only way terran can win is harassing from the first minute to the 30th minute and if the enemy pushes the issue bastrade? That sounds like fun for maybe one season.
Hell David and co. I really think you've been doing work during lotv overall, this map discussion is very good as well but seriously terran is weaker than the other races straight up. You know it, I know it and everyone else knows buffing harass doesn't address that.
You take away one of the only ways zergs can harass and just adds to the tools of terran and keep harking to the delusion that every protoss should play like Rain and that protoss should be bascially immune to early attacks.
You guys have been getting so much right, was it pure luck? xD
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Balance doesn't have anything to do with it. Ulrena is as balanced as Dusk Towers. It's just that most of the maps lean towards aggression while Dusk Towers leans very very hard towards turtling, which people like since it allows them to do their own thing without having to worry about the opponent.
I don't think that many people are hating on Ulrena. I'm not, my friends are not. The maps that are recieving a lot of hate are the maps like prion - which is completely justified, given that it's highly imbalanced in two of the three non-mirror matchups (68/32 and 61/39)
Ulrena is different, but aside from a few quirks (close by air distance combined with huge wall needed for natural makes hatch-tech zerg drops more problematic than almost any other map) it's fairly balanced. It brings different but pretty fair games, which is nice.
--------
and that protoss should be bascially immune to early attacks.
Changes are not made with this goal in mind. PvZ is one of the weakest matchups in the game when it comes to getting set up on 2+ bases without falling behind.
You could use the same criticism against Zerg, as they open 3 hatch before pool and similar openings on a day to day basis and even some bizarre all-ins fail to punish those openings; It's so safe that it's become standard.
|
On April 09 2016 06:15 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +Balance doesn't have anything to do with it. Ulrena is as balanced as Dusk Towers. It's just that most of the maps lean towards aggression while Dusk Towers leans very very hard towards turtling, which people like since it allows them to do their own thing without having to worry about the opponent. I don't think that many people are hating on Ulrena. I'm not, my friends are not. The maps that are recieving a lot of hate are the maps like prion - which is completely justified, given that it's highly imbalanced in two of the three non-mirror matchups (68/32 and 61/39) Ulrena is different, but aside from a few quirks (close by air distance combined with huge wall needed for natural makes hatch-tech zerg drops more problematic than almost any other map) it's fairly balanced. It brings different but pretty fair games, which is nice.
Quite a few people are hating Ulrena, due to the playstyles that the close by air distances promote. Many more people have been complaining about Ulrena than Orbital Shipyard for example despite Orbital being very terran favoured and Ulrena being much more balanced. Prion is just kind of a disaster.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Orbital is kinda like dusk in that it's a fairly stable map. The winrates might not be the best on it, but people generally feel like they'll have a solid chance to outplay their opponent and they'll get into the midgame alright if they try to, regardless of the matchup.
My average game length on Ulrena is much shorter than every other map but that hasn't seemed like a problem aside from ZvP drop all-ins being particularly hard to stop there. Every race can end the game more easily on Ulrena when there is blood in the water.
|
On April 09 2016 05:12 JackONeill wrote:
I'm still amazed by the level of bullshit blizzard display. They're still stalling. Amazing.
The idea for terran is pretty clear : positional play is boring, and WE NEED MORE HARASSMENT AND WORKER HARASSMENT.
I can't process the level of stupidity of this update. Banshees and liberators are absolutely not fitting comparable roles. Bio/banshee is never gonna happend. Banshee speed upgrade is gimmicky and ridiculous already, and trying to make it standard is a whole new level of stupid.
Agreed so much.
I miss the constant army trading that was in BW. SC2 is too focused on 2 deathballs avoiding each other while small squads are killing workers. There is too much worker killing bullshit in the game. Armies need to fight and trade with each other more often. Enough with the worker harassment. Design a game that has combat units actually fight other combat units, dammit. Banshees are good only for killing workers. There's too much of that shit out already.
It's too easy to attack mains. It's too easy to get into a basetrade scenario. The last thing the game needs is another buff to a specialized worker killing unit at the expense of a space controlling, positional play unit.
|
On April 09 2016 06:31 andrewlt wrote:
The last thing the game needs is another buff to a specialized worker killing unit at the expense of a space controlling, positional play unit.
I feel like that is all that matters to them, creating entertaining games for spectators. Harass units are fun to watch, it must be good. This is how they design SC2 now. Who cares how fun it is to actually play. 
These feedback updates could achieve so much more, instead it feels like they slow down progress on real issues.
|
On April 09 2016 03:10 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 03:07 Spyridon wrote:On April 09 2016 02:54 Elentos wrote:On April 09 2016 02:51 Spyridon wrote:On April 09 2016 02:42 Elentos wrote:
Oh yeah, the part about the maps is sensible (though I'm pretty sure I've read something like that a bunch of times in comments about Dayvie's feedback posts). I'd say 3 experimental ones per season would be good. Not going to happen. They said last week that they can't do that because "all of the maps may be potentially veto'ed every game and you would never see them outside of BO7". Except Dayvie proposes a number between 1 and 3 himself in this post. You left out the part where he completely removed the distinction between which style of maps are to be included or not. He says 1-3 "experimental" maps. That doesn't change anything - the debate last few weeks was on standard or not, and this week he completely removed that distinction. This only guarantees that 1-3 will be "new ideas that they have not tried before". Does not guarantee anything for the rest of the pool, aside from them "not being the same map type because they want to encourage variety" - that's basically the same thing as before. He also displays a completely skewed view of which maps are "experimental" or not, and leaves the determination of a map that is suitable or not up to himself. Effectively removing the determination of what is "standard" or not - meaning he can throw in what ever he wants and claim it's "low risk". Now he can throw in any maps he want and say "it doesn't matter if you call it standard or not". How is that an improvement? Nothing has changed except what he is saying to the public - AKA it's just PR (again). He says the discussion of standard vs non-standard isn't helpful. And it isn't, as he rightfully points out Dusk Towers isn't actually standard, but still well liked.
The reason Dusk Towers is well liked and considered "standard" is that you can do a standard build on it without having to worry about dying to some generally non-viable strategy that works only on that map. Dusk towers fits that bill, most of the other maps do not.
In hots I would have vetoed every 2-player map (and don't even start me on the 4-player ones) we've had in lotv except for frozen temple because they lack the two qualities I most desire:
1) A visible natural expansion so I can check if my opponent is going for macro play or a pressure/allin build.
2) No gimmicks. (i.e. no gold bases galore as on Prion, no ludicrous amount of rocks like on Ruins of Endition, and not super close by air)
For me, lotv is new enough that I just want to practice standard unit interactions so that I get a good feel for how the game works. I can't really do that on the map pools we've had because I'm always worried about dying to some cheesy build that works on that specific map, and which. And even when I figure out how to defend or blind counter that build, it will not help me improve my game on any other map. I don't think I would really mind having a couple of these types of maps in the pool, but when I can't get a decent amount of practice on standard builds it just gets frustrating.
|
Nerfing Liberatos both vs ground and vs air?
Basically completely killing Terran lategame.
So, as a Terran, it's either kill your opponent in midgame or auto-lose in the lategame? Is that really what Blizzard wants? 1 or 2 base all-ins every single TvP and TvZ?
|
On April 09 2016 06:45 feanaro wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 03:10 Elentos wrote:On April 09 2016 03:07 Spyridon wrote:On April 09 2016 02:54 Elentos wrote:On April 09 2016 02:51 Spyridon wrote:On April 09 2016 02:42 Elentos wrote:
Oh yeah, the part about the maps is sensible (though I'm pretty sure I've read something like that a bunch of times in comments about Dayvie's feedback posts). I'd say 3 experimental ones per season would be good. Not going to happen. They said last week that they can't do that because "all of the maps may be potentially veto'ed every game and you would never see them outside of BO7". Except Dayvie proposes a number between 1 and 3 himself in this post. You left out the part where he completely removed the distinction between which style of maps are to be included or not. He says 1-3 "experimental" maps. That doesn't change anything - the debate last few weeks was on standard or not, and this week he completely removed that distinction. This only guarantees that 1-3 will be "new ideas that they have not tried before". Does not guarantee anything for the rest of the pool, aside from them "not being the same map type because they want to encourage variety" - that's basically the same thing as before. He also displays a completely skewed view of which maps are "experimental" or not, and leaves the determination of a map that is suitable or not up to himself. Effectively removing the determination of what is "standard" or not - meaning he can throw in what ever he wants and claim it's "low risk". Now he can throw in any maps he want and say "it doesn't matter if you call it standard or not". How is that an improvement? Nothing has changed except what he is saying to the public - AKA it's just PR (again). He says the discussion of standard vs non-standard isn't helpful. And it isn't, as he rightfully points out Dusk Towers isn't actually standard, but still well liked. The reason Dusk Towers is well liked and considered "standard" is that you can do a standard build on it without having to worry about dying to some generally non-viable strategy that works only on that map. Dusk towers fits that bill, most of the other maps do not. In hots I would have vetoed every 2-player map (and don't even start me on the 4-player ones) we've had in lotv except for frozen temple because they lack the two qualities I most desire: 1) A visible natural expansion so I can check if my opponent is going for macro play or a pressure/allin build. 2) No gimmicks. (i.e. no gold bases galore as on Prion, no ludicrous amount of rocks like on Ruins of Endition, and not super close by air) For me, lotv is new enough that I just want to practice standard unit interactions so that I get a good feel for how the game works. I can't really do that on the map pools we've had because I'm always worried about dying to some cheesy build that works on that specific map, and which. And even when I figure out how to defend or blind counter that build, it will not help me improve my game on any other map. I don't think I would really mind having a couple of these types of maps in the pool, but when I can't get a decent amount of practice on standard builds it just gets frustrating.
Too bad Blizzard's definition of "Standard" differs from you and everyone elses, and they shut down all talk of that completely.
Now we're left with "1-3 Experimental maps"... and if it's not "Experimental", it's acceptable.
But the definition of "experimental" is still up to Blizzards discretion completely. We're basically still in the same place - actually, no, scratch that. We're actually in a place they can include MORE non-standard maps than before. Only difference is now, they have jumbled the terminology so their methods and definition of "standard maps" can not be questioned, and tried to give the impression that they are giving players what they asked for, even though they are giving more of the same.
Build order wins shouldn't even be prevalent, anyway. Static strategies are not fun, it just becomes rehearsed. StarCraft isn't dynamic anymore... They act like adding experimental maps gives the game more variety. But that just forces people to use gimmicks. More variety would mean more options that would actually work on most maps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
