|
On April 09 2016 02:31 Elentos wrote:
I agree with nerfing liberator AA but stop trying to push the banshee buff.
Yeah Banshees are terrible in TvP, Photon Overcharge just eats them alive, and with the increased chance of Stargate openers compared to the Banshee's prime in WOL, it means a great chance for Phoenixes to be on the field.
It'd make more sense due the value of the unit to make Liberators require Tech Labs and Banshees not to (though I know this would greatly imbalance the game due to the importance of the Liberator, it is just to show the uselessness of the Banshee).
|
On April 10 2016 01:43 Foxxan wrote:
You cant even read properly. I very clearly stated to not focus on the new part, yet you do.
You show this in your other text aswell.
It's hard not to misunderstand you, since you contradict yourself and spout nonsense - I'll explain it to you once more: If it is irrelevant that the cyclone is new, then the focus is that it sees little play, yes? It DOES see play, it DOES have a role in the game, thus the comparison with other units that see ABSOLUTELY no play, and have NO place in the game (for example swarmhosts) is super relevant, because clearly that is a bigger issue than the cyclone, so stop whining about it. IF the argument is that the unit is new, and you honestly believe units should be used more the newer they are, then they need to remake sc2 entirely as lings, zealots and marines are the most produced units in the game. So which is it? Either my original comment was relevant, or my second one was - either way what I said is correct and not 'wrong'.
|
On April 10 2016 02:22 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 15:44 CyanApple wrote:
well they say they dont want the 5 maps remaining after the veto to be only one type. i hope having only two types (1 experimental map+4 proven maptypes) would be ok for them. that would be highly appreciated i guess.
this would give us indeed 3 experimental and 4 proven maps.
That's not what they said. They mentioned they don't want more than 1 map of the same type, period. And gave multiple examples of this: Show nested quote +Regardless of what label you prefer, we feel that it’s a great map but we just don’t want more than 1 map of this exact same type in the ladder pool. Show nested quote + The important thing is we know this type of layout is fun in SC2, and we can definitely use this map or maps like this map in the future. We just don’t want to have more than 1 map of this type in the pool. Show nested quote +b. Again, we just don’t want to have more than one map of this type in the map pool is the important thing here. Show nested quote +When we say we want to push map diversity, the ultimate goal is that we want to avoid a situation where only 1 map type is allowed to enter the map pool. This is the part that I don't think people realize. They made an extremely long presentation for their new terms for maps going forward, and tried very hard to make it "look" like they were giving players what they wanted (less "creative" maps and more maps you can play "standard" on)... Yet what they really explained was exactly what we already have - 1 to 3 'experimental' maps, with the remaining maps being no more than 1 of the same type. This definition would explain the map pool right now, they have not promised to give us anything different! They fooled a majority of people here who think they promised something different than what they did. He didnt say 3 maps vs 4 proven maps. He said 4 proven map types. That's a term that's even more oblivious than "standard", and gives them a justification for making sure you have to play differently on every map in the pool. It's the opposite of what people were asking for... AKA the new David Kim standard: Ask for feedback, do not implement changes with good feedback, and only implement changes that have overwhelmingly negative feedback.
They gave examples of maptypes, that they only want one map of in the map pool. They also said, as I already quoted:
When we say we want to push map diversity, the ultimate goal is that we want to avoid a situation where only 1 map type is allowed to enter the map pool.
This is why I am suggesting to have 3 maps of experimental type and 4 maps of proven type.
You are right though, that this definition is more oblivious, as maps of former experimental type could become proven and would then be included in the 4 (as I am suggesting) maps of proven type. This could ultimately lead to a mappool not including any maps considered "standard" as of now, which is what I am worried about.
|
On April 09 2016 21:20 Charoisaur wrote:uhm... which fun exactly? What's fun about chasing a super-fast unit that you can only kill if your opponent messes up. I dont want terran to be balanced around that.
ya, david kim literally enjoys fast moving units. there is 0 consideration if it's actually a fun game element to play against. lol
the game is so unenjoyable because of all these bullshit gimmick utility units the guy put in the game, it's nuts.
|
On April 10 2016 02:41 Avi-Love wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 01:43 Foxxan wrote:
You cant even read properly. I very clearly stated to not focus on the new part, yet you do.
You show this in your other text aswell. It's hard not to misunderstand you, since you contradict yourself and spout nonsense - I'll explain it to you once more: If it is irrelevant that the cyclone is new, then the focus is that it sees little play, yes? It DOES see play, it DOES have a role in the game, thus the comparison with other units that see ABSOLUTELY no play, and have NO place in the game (for example swarmhosts) is super relevant, because clearly that is a bigger issue than the cyclone, so stop whining about it. IF the argument is that the unit is new, and you honestly believe units should be used more the newer they are, then they need to remake sc2 entirely as lings, zealots and marines are the most produced units in the game. So which is it? Either my original comment was relevant, or my second one was - either way what I said is correct and not 'wrong'.
But comparing it to swarmhosts makes no sense since the swarm host is boring as hell, we have seen proof of this already.
The unit has no potential anylonger either whereas the cyclone still has potential.
Thats why its 100% irrelevant to even talk about swarmhost, even mentioning it.
While at the same time, mech is a hot topic nowadays. Cyclone belongs with mech. If cyclone gets its job done right, mech might be available.
So its super relevant to talk about cyclone.
|
Noone except terran players with less than 150 apm care about mech. It's already proven to be an extremely dull playstyle throughout all of Hots. There's air mech if you want to camp, you can even harass with speed banshees while doing nothing at home forever and watch your composition get stronger and stronger over time. It's there in TvZ, at least.
camping with liberator, ghost only and boring your opponent to death is the ultimate late game strat, so enjoy it.
|
On April 10 2016 03:17 Comedy wrote:
Noone except terran players with less than 150 apm care about mech. It's already proven to be an extremely dull playstyle throughout all of Hots. There's air mech if you want to camp, you can even harass with speed banshees while doing nothing at home forever and watch your composition get stronger and stronger over time. It's there in TvZ, at least.
camping with liberator, ghost only and boring your opponent to death is the ultimate late game strat, so enjoy it.
First, this kind of mentality is one of the main reasons the game is a shadow of it's former self. So, if I'm not as good as Polt, I'm not allowed to play Terran?
Second, let's see what's viable for Zerg in ZvT, shall we? Out of the top of my head, ling/bling/muta, roach/ravager, lurker play, and all that can transition into 8 armor ultras.
Let's look at PvT. I'm less familiar with toss, but off the top of my head again, they can go for chargelot/archon, adept heavy play, disruptor play with drops, colossi, etc etc and if they're allowed to get to lategame, it might as well be over for the terran player.
What does terran do in these matchups? Bio+Liberators. EVERY.SINGLE.TIME.
In the end of the day though, I guess only top-tier players are allowed to play this game and all other scrubs might as well go back to dota or whatever, right?
|
On April 10 2016 03:17 Comedy wrote:
Noone except terran players with less than 150 apm care about mech. It's already proven to be an extremely dull playstyle throughout all of Hots. There's air mech if you want to camp, you can even harass with speed banshees while doing nothing at home forever and watch your composition get stronger and stronger over time. It's there in TvZ, at least.
camping with liberator, ghost only and boring your opponent to death is the ultimate late game strat, so enjoy it.
The best game in sc2 history was a mech vs bio game.
The problem was turtling to skyterran which was boring. If the terran played aggressive ground mech the games were very exciting.
Check out TaeJa vs INnoVation or all forGG/gumiho games to see examples of that.
|
On April 10 2016 03:51 ihatevideogames wrote:
What does terran do in these matchups? Bio+Liberators. EVERY.SINGLE.TIME.
Reaper, Hellion, Hellbat, Banshee, Widow Mine, Liberator, Marine, Marauder, Ghost, Medivac, Tanks, Viking, Cyclone, Thor
Yeah.
|
I hope everyone understands that the slow death of SC2 is occurring from devs that do not understand the important of strategic diversity or that patching often is important right now.
99% of Terran games are always bio + mass liberator every single game. I like playing SC2 still like most people and wonder when blizzard will wake up but after years of the same non-sense it doesn't seem like they will ever listen to the people that know best in this community.
But sure, make the banshee arbitrarily faster instead of changing anything else important in the game.
To be honest, at this point i would rather blizzard not buff Terran and instead nerf/kill all of the infuriatingly stupid and frustrating things they added into LOTV such as invincible nydus worm, adept shades, and mass ravager. They are blatantly ignoring those things.
I mean, do people really accept still you should have an invulnerable building that's globally buildable into your opponent's base that can be mass tranfused...are you guys happy with this being in the game? I feel like no one speaks up about this because you're all afraid you'll be labelled as a balance whiner when 99% of you should be complaining to blizzard about this stuff or it never will get fixed.
|
On April 10 2016 03:51 ihatevideogames wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 03:17 Comedy wrote:
Noone except terran players with less than 150 apm care about mech. It's already proven to be an extremely dull playstyle throughout all of Hots. There's air mech if you want to camp, you can even harass with speed banshees while doing nothing at home forever and watch your composition get stronger and stronger over time. It's there in TvZ, at least.
camping with liberator, ghost only and boring your opponent to death is the ultimate late game strat, so enjoy it. First, this kind of mentality is one of the main reasons the game is a shadow of it's former self. So, if I'm not as good as Polt, I'm not allowed to play Terran? Second, let's see what's viable for Zerg in ZvT, shall we? Out of the top of my head, ling/bling/muta, roach/ravager, lurker play, and all that can transition into 8 armor ultras. Let's look at PvT. I'm less familiar with toss, but off the top of my head again, they can go for chargelot/archon, adept heavy play, disruptor play with drops, colossi, etc etc and if they're allowed to get to lategame, it might as well be over for the terran player. What does terran do in these matchups? Bio+Liberators. EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. In the end of the day though, I guess only top-tier players are allowed to play this game and all other scrubs might as well go back to dota or whatever, right?
Many many zerg/protoss are conditioned to face bio only play, if mech/skyterran is more viable they have to adjust and that is scary. So many people on the ladder who dont know how to deal with the latter comp starting to derp and qq the hardest for liberator nerfs.
|
On April 10 2016 05:03 PinoKotsBeer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 03:51 ihatevideogames wrote:On April 10 2016 03:17 Comedy wrote:
Noone except terran players with less than 150 apm care about mech. It's already proven to be an extremely dull playstyle throughout all of Hots. There's air mech if you want to camp, you can even harass with speed banshees while doing nothing at home forever and watch your composition get stronger and stronger over time. It's there in TvZ, at least.
camping with liberator, ghost only and boring your opponent to death is the ultimate late game strat, so enjoy it. First, this kind of mentality is one of the main reasons the game is a shadow of it's former self. So, if I'm not as good as Polt, I'm not allowed to play Terran? Second, let's see what's viable for Zerg in ZvT, shall we? Out of the top of my head, ling/bling/muta, roach/ravager, lurker play, and all that can transition into 8 armor ultras. Let's look at PvT. I'm less familiar with toss, but off the top of my head again, they can go for chargelot/archon, adept heavy play, disruptor play with drops, colossi, etc etc and if they're allowed to get to lategame, it might as well be over for the terran player. What does terran do in these matchups? Bio+Liberators. EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. In the end of the day though, I guess only top-tier players are allowed to play this game and all other scrubs might as well go back to dota or whatever, right? Many many zerg/protoss are conditioned to face bio only play, if mech/skyterran is more viable they have to adjust and that is scary. So many people on the ladder who dont know how to deal with the latter comp starting to derp and qq the hardest for liberator nerfs.
No, that can't be it, skyterran must be blatantly OP in the highest level of play! How many skyterran games have we seen in the highest level of play? I bet they can be counted in one hand.
And instead of letting the meta settle and evolve, David Kim wants to immediately kill skyterran. He pretty much wants to force bio play.
|
I don't think Zerg early drops build in ZvP are broken at all. They are already being figured it out by professional players, and they are strong just because of the ridiculous maps we have to play, and their extremely short air distance. It's a map issue, not necessarily a balanced one.
|
|
|
On April 10 2016 05:01 avilo wrote:
I hope everyone understands that the slow death of SC2 is occurring from devs that do not understand the important of strategic diversity or that patching often is important right now.
no, i think fewer patches along with accepting that a diverse race game takes 2 years to balance is the way to go. The 2 year time period to shake out lots of different strats is needed. You must let the meta cook slowly on simmer... you can't stick it in a microwave oven and make it magically balance in 6 months.
Morten's view is that it might well be impossible to balance this game along with any other diverse race.. 3 race RTS.
Also, due to macroscopic forces going on way, way above SC2 the entire genre is toast ; it has nothing to do with the quality of the game play and it is out of ATVI's EA's and MS's control. Its a shift in consumer tastes in the face of improving technology. Don't blame it on the game play.
Saying Starcraft is killin the RTS genre is like saying Pac-Man destroyed the Arcade scene in North America.
|
should just change ovie drop to 50/50 and then also bring back the upgrade at the lair to make all ovies upgradable
I am also extremely disappointed to see they are not even considering removing tankivacs anymore
|
Couldn't agree more that "standard" vs "non-standard" discussion has been fruitless. "Standard" is a completely relative term and means different things to everyone. Closest I can get to a definition of "standard" has been a map on which it is easy to take three bases, and doesn't encourage any single type of play above all others. But that's a very large umbrella and doesn't really help with the discussion.
Still, I think that maps will eventually reach a state of normalcy, just like everything else in this game. Everyone will bitch and moan until the problem is fixed, as always.
|
On April 10 2016 06:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 05:01 avilo wrote:
I hope everyone understands that the slow death of SC2 is occurring from devs that do not understand the important of strategic diversity or that patching often is important right now.
no, i think fewer patches along with accepting that a diverse race game takes 2 years to balance is the way to go. The 2 year time period to shake out lots of different strats is needed. You must let the meta cook slowly on simmer... you can't stick it in a microwave oven and make it magically balance in 6 months. Morten's view is that it might well be impossible to balance this game along with any other diverse race.. 3 race RTS. Also, due to macroscopic forces going on way, way above SC2 the entire genre is toast ; it has nothing to do with the quality of the game play and it is out of ATVI's EA's and MS's control. Its a shift in consumer tastes in the face of improving technology. Don't blame it on the game play. Saying Starcraft is killin the RTS genre is like saying Pac-Man destroyed the Arcade scene in North America.
Nah it's a matter of major design mistakes never being fixed, "cooking on simmer" for 10years is a pretty stupid thing to do when bad stuff was put into the game to begin with. Yes SC2 has many critical flaws that have been pointed out by many for a long time it is why the game is in a bad state and a ton of people have left it, RTS isn't "toast" nor will it be if a new great game comes around. You keep repeating the same stuff and praise the companies blindly like you want a job there but try and be honest, businesses do really shitty stuff for money sometimes and blizzard has definitely done a lot of that lately (especially after merging with activision and the productivist shareholder board logic instead of passion and dev skill).
|
On April 10 2016 06:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 05:01 avilo wrote:
I hope everyone understands that the slow death of SC2 is occurring from devs that do not understand the important of strategic diversity or that patching often is important right now.
no, i think fewer patches along with accepting that a diverse race game takes 2 years to balance is the way to go. The 2 year time period to shake out lots of different strats is needed. You must let the meta cook slowly on simmer... you can't stick it in a microwave oven and make it magically balance in 6 months. Morten's view is that it might well be impossible to balance this game along with any other diverse race.. 3 race RTS. Also, due to macroscopic forces going on way, way above SC2 the entire genre is toast ; it has nothing to do with the quality of the game play and it is out of ATVI's EA's and MS's control. Its a shift in consumer tastes in the face of improving technology. Don't blame it on the game play. Saying Starcraft is killin the RTS genre is like saying Pac-Man destroyed the Arcade scene in North America.
The game itself is not helping. 99% of the community are players between bronze and diamond. 'lol who cares about bronzies and golds' you might say, but those are the people who gonna watch the streams, the tourneys and whatnot, and bring in the sponsors.
When you fill the game with a bunch of gimmicky stuff that's more annoying than fun to deal with, you're gonna alienate them. Sure, Polt can make toss disruptors useless with his micro, but a gold leaguer might as well quit the game because of them. I can't imagine how a plat toss will feel the millionth time he gets roach/ravager all-in'd. And I definitely don't think it's fun for the other guy in diamond when I make 12 speed banshees and snipe hatcheries everywhere while I turtle with liberators.
The game focuses too much on 'how can i deal with this annoying BS' instead of strategy. I'm sure there's some way to make the game less dissapointing to play without taking away any of it's depth.
And don't get me started on the fact that sc2 is marketed as a 'hardcore esport', that costs 40 euros to play (only for lotv) while f2p games put it to shame with their spectator and community options.
|
On April 10 2016 06:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 05:01 avilo wrote:
I hope everyone understands that the slow death of SC2 is occurring from devs that do not understand the important of strategic diversity or that patching often is important right now.
no, i think fewer patches along with accepting that a diverse race game takes 2 years to balance is the way to go. The 2 year time period to shake out lots of different strats is needed. You must let the meta cook slowly on simmer... you can't stick it in a microwave oven and make it magically balance in 6 months. Morten's view is that it might well be impossible to balance this game along with any other diverse race.. 3 race RTS. Also, due to macroscopic forces going on way, way above SC2 the entire genre is toast ; it has nothing to do with the quality of the game play and it is out of ATVI's EA's and MS's control. Its a shift in consumer tastes in the face of improving technology. Don't blame it on the game play. Saying Starcraft is killin the RTS genre is like saying Pac-Man destroyed the Arcade scene in North America.
So, if gameplay is irrelevant, why is BW still played? It's a game from 1997. Why not just sc2?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
