Map Diversity We wanted to point out something interesting that we noticed over the past week. We realized discussing standard maps vs. non standard maps might not be as important as discussing having a better ratio of new map types to proven map types.
Here are some examples:
1. Dusk Towers is considered to be very non-standard to us, but many people who were arguing for standard maps have the opposite opinion.
a. A map that a player can take 4 bases while defending 1 choke point doesn’t feel standard to us.
b. 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.
2. Sejong Station is a map we also consider to be very non-standard, but many people who want standard maps look to be saying it’s standard.
a. It’s really difficult to protect your third, and the natural mineral line being super exposed by air harass are the non-standard parts of this map.
b. Again, labeling the map one way or the other doesn’t seem to be helpful. 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.
3. We completely agree maps like Ulrena produce really entertaining games even though it’s non-standard (as seen from games in KR last season)
a. So there is room to explore new map types, but maybe we should do so in moderation going forward.
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.
4. We completely agree on the points many bring up regarding some of the other non-standard maps that turned out to be quite bad.
a. Maps like: Klontas Mire or Daedalus Point.
b. There is also a chance that exploring new maps doesn’t work out, in which case there’s always the veto system. We can also make fixes to maps, and/or we can just simply remove them from the pool like we have done in the past.
c. We agree with many players that in Season 2, we may have pushed new map types a bit too far.
We can keep going, but even these examples show that the discussion may have been about the wrong thing. Due to the definition of a “standard map” not being consistent, maybe it’ll be best to stop using these terms when describing what a good map is or isn’t. 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.
So instead of discussing if a map is standard or non-standard, we agree with much of your feedback in that the important factors are these two things:
1. A majority of the maps should be good maps that have low risk of breaking the game (Regardless if you define them as ‘standard’ or ‘non-standard.)
a. Any map that the majority of players like can go into this category, but we’re not going to have two Dusk Towers or two Overgrowth in different tilesets.
2. Only a few maps, at most, are exploring new ideas per season.
a. This number we could aim for can be maybe 1-3 per season at most.
b. We’d love to hear your thoughts on the exact number, and once we have decided together what the best move is, we can move forward with trying that for the next season.
c. This, we wonder, is where we didn’t quite hit the mark on in Season 2, and we need to work towards setting a stronger baseline
In conclusion, we understand that the maps for this season might have introduced too much change all at once. We want to make sure to clear up any misconceptions that the design team dislikes unique maps such as Dusk Towers, and we would like to focus on the above two points for discussion going forward.
Map changes for next week Let’s now talk about actual changes we can make to the current map pool as early as next week. We would love to move fairly quickly on the changes so let’s get focused discussions going over the weekend.
We have been testing out various suggestions and we have also been testing some of our ideas regarding the potential issues brought up, and here are the proposed changes:
Frozen Temple - Reduce the size of the choke point leading into the natural expansion area
Invader - Remove the “bridge” areas next to the third to help horizontal spawn positions.
Korhal Carnage Knockout - Remove the Rock Towers at main base locations - Reduce the main base ramps to the smallest size
Let’s try to figure out if further changes are needed or if a map just can’t work and needs to be replaced, so that we can make the best call for the current map pool.
Balance Thank you for your feedback and discussion regarding the proposed changes in the current balance test map. We would like to move forward with some of the changes as soon as possible, and continue to test the other changes on a balance test map in order to move with balance changes in quicker, smaller steps.
Overlord transport upgrade requirement moved to Lair We agree with the argument that this change will be more effective at strictly only buffing Protoss early game vs. Zerg, as compared to the Ravager nerf which nerfs Zerg against both races early on. We would like to get this into the game ASAP to see how the early game changes in PvZ in order to be able to see if further action is needed.
Banshee + Liberator We believe bringing a bit more strength to the Banshee and taking away from the Liberator strength seems to be a solid way to go. Due to how much emphasis there is on Liberator strength, and the fun we’re seeing with speed upgraded Banshees, we believe these changes will be good for the game. The changes would be the same as what we’re testing currently in the balance test map, but we’re thinking the cost of the Banshee upgrade should be reduced to 150/150 instead of 100/100 like it is on the test map.
If further changes are needed here, we believe changing the Liberator AA damage to be +Light instead of dealing full damage to everything, and further increasing the Banshee speed upgrade effectiveness could be a viable next step.
We have other changes we believe we should continue exploring in the balance test map, but we wanted to make a move on these 3 changes as soon as possible, if there is agreement in this area. Let’s also aggressively discuss these proposed changes so that we can make a move in this area as soon as possible. Thanks!
I agree with nerfing liberator AA but stop trying to push the banshee buff. It needs tech labs to be made. It's not gonna become a thing against Protoss and it can lead to completely ridiculous gameplay in TvZ.
What is seriously the reason for removing overlord drops? They were the one offensive option zerg had in the early game. To think that early drops only affects zvp is foolhardy.
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.
Wow. They are totally delaying and not talking about the important terran changes (ie: tank) and going forward with changes that no one asked for (ie: banshee).
Banshee buff is dumb and don't see why they are doing it, but I guess ok changes. I disagree with removing overlord drops, at this point they might as well make it like it used to be or give us the option.
I actually think the ravager delay would have been a smart move regardless. I hope they get to the flying tanks soon!
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".
On April 09 2016 02:43 usopsama wrote: Wow. They are totally delaying and not talking about the important terran changes (ie: tank) and going forward with changes that no one asked for (ie: banshee).
You are just realizing now they are stalling? They have been stalling since LotV release, lol.
Banshee was a change that most people were against. They are insisting on it. Why? Because it's a new subject that will be regularly and openly debated, so they can discuss changes on Banshee for the next few months to "get it in a good place", rather than doing any significant changes..
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.
On April 09 2016 02:36 BamBam wrote: What is seriously the reason for removing overlord drops? They were the one offensive option zerg had in the early game. To think that early drops only affects zvp is foolhardy.
Because they're a balance issue and limiting map design in one matchup and barely ever used in the other matchups
On April 09 2016 02:43 usopsama wrote: Wow. They are totally delaying and not talking about the important terran changes (ie: tank) and going forward with changes that no one asked for (ie: banshee).
You are just realizing now they are stalling? They have been stalling since LotV release, lol.
Banshee was a change that most people were against. They are insisting on it. Why? Because it's a new subject that will be regularly and openly debated, so they can discuss changes on Banshee for the next few months to "get it in a good place", rather than doing any significant changes..
Oh no, I knew perfectly well that they were stalling. They have been stalling for the tank damage buff since fucking WoL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But after 6 years of waiting, there was hope. On February 18, they started talking about the idea of buffing the tank damage. And then, that consideration was completely dropped. After that, they started doing weird shit like trying to buff the banshee's speed.
I don't know what to say, I am speechless... can't believe they are moving Ovi Drop to Lair again... and letting the Ravager stay how it is which is ridiculous hard for both T and P when trying to defend an expansion and everything (specially slow units and structures) is rekt...
I don't care about the Lib nerf, and if the Banshee buff is idiotic they will revert it, but come on, the 10 secs on Ravager Bilis was going to help both MU without needing to destroy Ovi Drop early game.
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. Now we are guaranteed 1-3 experimental maps, with the rest of the pool being all "Different" styles of maps.
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).
On April 09 2016 03:04 usopsama wrote: But after 6 years of waiting, there was hope. On February 18, they started talking about the idea of buffing the tank damage. And then, that consideration was completely dropped. After that, they started doing weird shit like trying to buff the banshee's speed.
Yeah I know the feeling. I lost most of my help after what they did in beta last summer...
I've said so many times, I give up, it's never going to happen. But same as you, I still have that little bit of hope. I still follow every update of theirs, only to be disappointed.
Feels like I'm stuck in an abusive relationship, yet cant pull myself away... lol.
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. He specifically says that they overdid it with the map pool for this season on the experimental regard, and he also says that the focus will be on having maps that work without breaking the game and without having them be the same. Those are sensible statements.
To me, that doesn't sound like he wants to make the map pool to be Klontas Mire, Scrap Station, Dash and Terminal, Korhal Carnage Knockout, Inferno Pools, Ulrena.
No Thor change. No tank change. Liberator nerf. A banshee buff that doens't synergize with bio play and will either (a) be useless or (b) be overpowered against ground units and thus force air vs air.
I agree that nerfing the Libertor is a good thing. But the problem is that doing so in isolation will cause huge balance problems.
Mass Corrupter/BroodLord supported by Vipers is already OP. Ultralisk are already OP. Both of those are balanced out by currently OP liberator.
Against Protoss Liberators are the only thing that keeps Terran alive by giving them a chance in the midgame. In the lategame Tempest/HT is almost not beatable given an equal postion, if you nerf Liberators without touching Tempest 4 supply cost Terran will have huge problems since it will be harder to kill/damage Protoss in the midgame.
I suggest the following: 1. Nerf the Liberator. 2. Give Thor the damage increase against armoured air so that Terran has a chance against Tempest/Carriers/BroodLords with a nerfed liberator. 3. Increase Tempest supply to 6. 4. Give Tanks bonus damage vs shields or increase Tank damage overall.
Getting faster banshees earlier will be just introduce more gimmicks in the game and will not be enough so compensate for a weaker liberator, especially against Protoss.
Wasnt there discussion about whether or not to just make the queen take a lot more space in overlords? Im not exactly up to date on top games, but i thought it was the queens + speedling drops that were stupid
EDIT: Also, jesus fucking christ ZvT is going to be so painfully awkward with speed banshees, even normal banshees are really gimmicky to deal with in the hands of a good player(fuck forgg for that btw)
On April 09 2016 02:50 blade55555 wrote: Banshee buff is dumb and don't see why they are doing it, but I guess ok changes. I disagree with removing overlord drops, at this point they might as well make it like it used to be or give us the option.
I actually think the ravager delay would have been a smart move regardless. I hope they get to the flying tanks soon!
Blizzard isn't fully consistent about favoring expansion additions over older units. A number of unit revamps in LotV failed and I don't think they particularly showed any concern about this. (which is good)
This is to support the point that they want to change the banshee not because they want to ensure a new-fangled upgrade is successfully used, but just because they think it might be good.
So, will the thor change go through or not? Also, what
"We have other changes we believe we should continue exploring in the balance test map, but we wanted to make a move on these 3 changes as soon as possible, if there is agreement in this area. Let’s also aggressively discuss these proposed changes so that we can make a move in this area as soon as possible. Thanks!"
really means? Hasn't the proposed changes already been discussed? What's the point of the balance test map anyway? When will the patch arrive? So many vague statements.
On April 09 2016 03:16 Aocowns wrote: Wasnt there discussion about whether or not to just make the queen take a lot more space in overlords? Im not exactly up to date on top games, but i thought it was the queens + speedling drops that were stupid
It wasn't just queens, but they were part of the issue. That kind of change would be good with minor other changes for keeping pre-lair drop, but would be nearly irrelevant at lair i think.
So Blizzard is finally understanding about the community complaints with the map pool, yet they don't understand the balance issue with each race? Eh...
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. He specifically says that they overdid it with the map pool for this season on the experimental regard, and he also says that the focus will be on having maps that work without breaking the game and without having them be the same. Those are sensible statements.
To me, that doesn't sound like he wants to make the map pool to be Klontas Mire, Scrap Station, Dash and Terminal, Korhal Carnage Knockout, Inferno Pools, Ulrena.
He says they over did it... okay... well are they going to do anything about that? Nope, just some small map tweaks. There has been a huge distinction between what they say, and what they do.
Just like their proposed banshee changes... He asked for feedback, the changes were not well received at all... Yet they move forward with it? How does that gain him any trust?
Then as we are discussing now, last week they say how they have to add a lot of variety because they know maps will be veto'ed, now they are claiming 1-3 "experimental"... Since when does contradictions actually gain any trust?
Also as mentioned in my last message, by removing distinction of standard, and guaranteeing 1-3 "experimental", that doesn't change a thing. You do realize, he could easily take the current map pool and explain how it fits the exact distinction he just explained, right?
So what did any of this discussion actually accomplish, aside from words claiming things will be different...?
Like I was saying earlier... It's like being stuck in an abusive relationship. "Things will be different next time!".... Right...
You may still trust their word, but that ship has sailed a looong time ago for me. For the last year they have been basically claiming to do something, then not doing it. Then asking for feedback on some changes that are not well received at all, and pushing them through anyway. In other words, they don't do the changes that have positive feedback, and push through the ones with negative feedback. Then spin some BS PR statement trying to regain trust back, saying they will do better next time, then <repeat>.
I've seen it too many times. I need to see action at this point, and their actions completely contradict their words.
Nerfing the liberator and replacing it with the banshee primarily nerfs terran in TvP. I don't think that matchup demands a nerf. TvZ it's a toss up whether it's a net 0 change or buffs/nerfs and TvT is a mirror so balance is maintained, but I see fast banshees being super frustrating in that matchup.
If they're dead set on forcing a liberator nerf through, they need to compensate with something that has historically impacted TvP instead of hoping for the best like they did with the widow mine nerf.
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.
The buffed banshee has nothing to do with replacing the liberator zone control, its just to replace libs in one of the many many areas it excels at, I personally like it, mech style uses banshees a lot so its good for mech. Don't really care about bio play.
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).
On April 09 2016 02:36 BamBam wrote: What is seriously the reason for removing overlord drops? They were the one offensive option zerg had in the early game. To think that early drops only affects zvp is foolhardy.
Because they're a balance issue and limiting map design in one matchup and barely ever used in the other matchups
On April 09 2016 03:18 petro1987 wrote: So, will the thor change go through or not? Also, what
"We have other changes we believe we should continue exploring in the balance test map, but we wanted to make a move on these 3 changes as soon as possible, if there is agreement in this area. Let’s also aggressively discuss these proposed changes so that we can make a move in this area as soon as possible. Thanks!"
really means? Hasn't the proposed changes already been discussed? What's the point of the balance test map anyway? When will the patch arrive? So many vague statements.
Most likely not, same they did with the Siege Tank Damage buff. Talk about it once then never mentioned it again and hoping people forgot about it. That´s why I don´t trust Blizz anymore regarding these Updates. Buffing Units that need no buffs (Banshee) while ignoring the ones that need it most (Tanks,Thors,Cyclones) all while at the same time questioning themselves why Mech is not working -_- .
Still need to remove flying entrenched mode tanks and then continue to aggressively test Thor/Cyclone ASAP (hopefully realize more range will be needed on these).
Oh ! And I almost forgot. You need to start working on Planetary Fortress and Missile Turret medivac drops for next April fools 2017 !
don’t want more than 1 map of this exact same type in the ladder pool
avoid a situation where only 1 map type is allowed to enter the map pool
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"
Edit2: also want to emphasize that pushing through the banshee update is a bad idea imo (for reasons already stated numerous times)
On April 09 2016 02:36 BamBam wrote: What is seriously the reason for removing overlord drops? They were the one offensive option zerg had in the early game. To think that early drops only affects zvp is foolhardy.
Because they're a balance issue and limiting map design in one matchup and barely ever used in the other matchups
Drops are used in all matchups, what
I have not seen many pro games with overlord drop being used at 3-4 minutes vs zerg or terran. If you've got a few, i'd like to see how effective it is. For clarity, i was specifically referring to situations that are possible with hatchery tech drop but not lair tech.
On April 09 2016 03:20 Nerchio wrote: And still nothing about protoss after they survive to enough immortals or late game
They'll get to it if it's a problem and the matchup reaches 40/60 for 2 months or 45/55 for 6 months.
Prion still hasn't been removed even though the record is zerg winning 2.13x more often than protoss in ZvP for the last 5 months and multiple Z including yourself have brought this up in the pro scene. PvT on Prion is also clearly imbalanced (toss won 1.59x more) so i don't see any justification for it being in the pool for 6+ months.
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.
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?
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
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.
avoid a situation where only 1 map type is allowed to enter the map pool
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 04:54 -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
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.
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.
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 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 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.
Reading through this thread I cannot help but feel that a lot of people (and blizzard) are simply not keeping up to date with the current situation of the game. First and foremost, Dusk and Orbital are not balanced maps, they are both disadvantageous to zerg, especially in zvt. Secondly, zerg is not strong lategame, zerg is actually losing both zvp and zvt lategame (although the breakpoint for this occurs at different times in the two matchups, zerg starts losing when protoss gets 3 bases and enough immortals in zvp, and zerg loses when terran gets to build enough air units in zvt). None of the proposed changes will help zerg, and nerfing drops (or ravagers, which was their original idea) hurts zergs ability to win / do enough damage early on. I think it is fairly obvious that zergs are struggling at the highest level of play right now, and that is not factoring in these changes and the new maps, which I believe will just make the situation worse. What I think needs to be changed however, is that liberator's anti air needs to be toned down, a lot. This won't effect tvt or tvp a lot I think, and would help zerg actually have a fighting chance against mass air late game - an alternate route would be to buff corrupters, which would also help vs mass protoss air (another scenario in which zerg has absolutely no chance to win once critical mass is reached). They could also buff parasitic bomb back to its original value.
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
Yeah, it's kind of silly when you think about it since the problematic match up is PvZ that Protoss is struggling in due to it being heavily Zerg favored and not PvT that is balanced.
Parasitic bomb damage is already high enough for its main design of shredding low and medium health air units. Stuff like vikings, liberators, phoenix, muta are at serious risk of taking game ending damage when dealing with parasitic bombs from what is a relatively small supply investment for vipers and the other viper spells are not dead weight either
What I think needs to be changed however, is that liberator's anti air needs to be toned down, a lot. This won't effect tvt or tvp a lot I think
You can already play Phoenix into terran early-midgame, it's just not as good as ground toss styles. It may see more popularity and strength if you can effectively kill liberators without matching or exceeding their numbers. I do agree that the AA is a bit crazy (a few of them are very effective against an entire army of mutalisks and they scale excellently) but a change would be pushing liberator into more of an anti ground specialist rather than "flies and is kinda good against everything"
I will have to disagree with you, maybe parasitic bomb was ok when people didn't know how to play against it, but with good korean terrans showing us how easy it is to spread/split out mass air, zerg just doesn't have the tools required to deal with mass air in either match up atm.
I think that the damage is not the way to go there
The damage is already high enough to make the engagements highly volatile - stuff like higher radius, less energy cost etc would be nicer if you really need to buff parasitic bomb. I think that changes to other units would be more suitable as well.
We don't want to encourage superunits like the WOLfestor or HOTShost because the race cannot play into a matchup or situation without a common OP unit. The Viper is already a strong unit that adds abilties and all-around value to a range of armies, it's just not absolutely amazing.
On April 09 2016 07:56 Cyro wrote: Parasitic bomb damage is already high enough for its main design of shredding low and medium health air units. Stuff like vikings, liberators, phoenix, muta are at serious risk of taking game ending damage when dealing with parasitic bombs from what is a relatively small supply investment for vipers and the other viper spells are not dead weight either
No, not really. Balance aside, at the highest level of play, terran alreardy splits against it very well.
zerg loses when terran gets to build enough air units in zvt
Not really. But nice whine from an overrepresented race.
Over represented with a single Zerg out of 8 player in gsl(and because he was in a group of 3 players), best players in proleague are mostly terran and protoss, I lol'd.
On April 09 2016 07:56 Cyro wrote: Parasitic bomb damage is already high enough for its main design of shredding low and medium health air units. Stuff like vikings, liberators, phoenix, muta are at serious risk of taking game ending damage when dealing with parasitic bombs from what is a relatively small supply investment for vipers and the other viper spells are not dead weight either
No, not really. Balance aside, at the highest level of play, terran alreardy splits against it very well.
And you want to encourage situations where terrans will take either 0 damage or instantly fatal damage rather than making the spell more consistent or fixing up other means of dealing with the situation?
On April 09 2016 07:56 Cyro wrote: Parasitic bomb damage is already high enough for its main design of shredding low and medium health air units. Stuff like vikings, liberators, phoenix, muta are at serious risk of taking game ending damage when dealing with parasitic bombs from what is a relatively small supply investment for vipers and the other viper spells are not dead weight either
No, not really. Balance aside, at the highest level of play, terran alreardy splits against it very well.
And you want to encourage situations where terrans will take either 0 damage or instantly fatal damage rather than making the spell more consistent or fixing up other means of dealing with the situation?
What I want is simple, I would have like Zerg to have a decent AA in the game so we don't have to suffer skymech/skytoss -kinda-bullshit-play, and Parasite bomb was an answer to that, although it was an awful one. Now it's more or less not useful.
Code S is a bit of an anomoly. Low sample size, different maps to everyone else. Code S PvZ is 62/38 in stark contradiction to most other tournaments.
By Aligulac rankings, TvZ is the most balanced matchup and hasn't drifted more than ~1% away from 50/50 for the last 7000 games. It's hard to say a lot based on the result of one part of one tournament, though Korea seems to be going T>Z>P while EU and NA are Z>T>P based on winrates and representation.
I agree that code S is a small sample size, but if you combine code S, proleague and SSL it is the best sample size we have (although possibly cutting the ssl games played on old versions of lerilak/prion). They represent what is by far the highest level of competition we have in sc2 - without being polluted by wildly varying level of skill - which is why statistics provided by aligulac are inherently tainted. Aligulac tracks way too many leagues and cups that are filled with what can best be described as bad players - this is very easy to observe as several bronze/silver players participate in basetradeTV and go4sc2 events - it is also evident from Aligulac's very own "top 10" list, which at best is bad - unless you actually think Byun is the best player in the world..?
We have other changes we believe we should continue exploring in the balance test map, but we wanted to make a move on these 3 changes as soon as possible, if there is agreement in this area. Let’s also aggressively discuss these proposed changes so that we can make a move in this area as soon as possible. Thanks!
Let's wait and see. IMO i don't think those change are bad as you think
Banshee + Liberator We believe bringing a bit more strength to the Banshee and taking away from the Liberator strength seems to be a solid way to go. Due to how much emphasis there is on Liberator strength, and the fun we’re seeing with speed upgraded Banshees, we believe these changes will be good for the game. The changes would be the same as what we’re testing currently in the balance test map, but we’re thinking the cost of the Banshee upgrade should be reduced to 150/150 instead of 100/100 like it is on the test map.
If further changes are needed here, we believe changing the Liberator AA damage to be +Light instead of dealing full damage to everything, and further increasing the Banshee speed upgrade effectiveness could be a viable next step.
So, what Blizzard is saying "fuck you if you want macro maps, they're not standard to us". Also this map pool clearly shows what a dumb idea mothership core was for early defense. Really, when third base and second base are that far apart, mothership core simply may not always work against aggressive opponents. It was ok last season but not this one.
What I think needs to be changed however, is that liberator's anti air needs to be toned down, a lot.
Yeh because every pro TvZ consists of mass Liberators beating Zergs.
You must look at the bigger picture.The problem is people don't want mass air vs mass air but also don't want liberator gets nerf.It doesn't make sense :O We need another community feedback to conclude this feedback.
Would adding map(s) maybe a third or halfway be a solid way to introducing different flavors? Seasons last a healthy amount of time, and as we're seeing Protoss learn JUST learning to play on maps like Prion and Ulrena, maybe the fact that Blizzard introduces so many at once is what makes it the most difficult. Small(er) map pool at the start with new ones added on every so often.
150/150 for Speed sounds okay. As it stands now, Toss is having to more and more have to go air or plan a Robo all in. It will be interesting to see how the defense shapes up.
don't see how nerfing overlord drops is going to make zergs ever want to use them, now they'll just either nydus, muta or just play a basic roach/ravager/hydra game. If they are putting ovie drop back at lair, then we need the 200/200 upgrade back so we don't make our overlords big freaking targets to focus fire or have to save overlords we invested 25/25 in. Putting ovie drop back at lair means it's main usefulness will be baneling drops in engagements, so we need the 200/200 back.
My problem with trying to diversify strategies by creating new "experimental" maps is that, in the end, it will force people to use specific strategies for those maps, thus limiting players options. Playing the exact same game every time on a map is neither interesting to watch nor play. Take LOL for example, a single map but with 10 out of 130 champions used every game you have ~10^14 possible initial conditions and different item builds makes a whole lot more strategies. I don't see people screaming after a replacement for Summoners Rift. Now, SC2 only has about 50 or so units, depending on if you include workers, overlords etc. However, since you can build any number of any unit at any given time, assuming that you have the money and the tech, there is theoretically an infinite number of possible builds. Of course not every build is viable but I would rather have a more "standard" set of maps(whatever that means) where several strategies are viable. Basically maps like Coda or Ohana (it means family), from HOTS, where the latter is probably my favourite map of all time. It was just as common to see rushes, three base games and games where the map was split in half. I'm sure Blizzard wants to make the game as fun as possible for everyone (why wouldn't they) but pushing for a lot of new maps every season is not something you should prioritize. What makes SC great is the gameplay, the mechanics and the strategies. In my opinion, there should be about 5-7 maps each season (so that you can veto some but still play on 3 or 4) and every new season 2 maps would rotate out and 2 would rotate in. If a map is imbalanced it should be replaced, or preferably edited, but I would rather like to see "safe" picks all the way through than experimental ones. We all know about the struggle to make mech viable and other units that are never used (rip swarmhost) and I think that the focus should be on making all (hopefully) units and strategies viable on those maps instead. I don't want any gimmicky maps but straight up maps with characteristics such as "Here I have to break some rocks to connect my natural to my third." or "Here I can choose the closer low ground base as my third or the further away highground one." Again I know that Blizzard do what they can to accomodate for all players and I don't want to take away from their effort. I would just like to share my view, which I hope is taken as constructive critisism, since I am very passionate about the game. Which we all are and thats why we're yelling so much
On April 09 2016 07:15 Avi-Love wrote: Reading through this thread I cannot help but feel that a lot of people (and blizzard) are simply not keeping up to date with the current situation of the game. First and foremost, Dusk and Orbital are not balanced maps, they are both disadvantageous to zerg, especially in zvt. Secondly, zerg is not strong lategame, zerg is actually losing both zvp and zvt lategame (although the breakpoint for this occurs at different times in the two matchups, zerg starts losing when protoss gets 3 bases and enough immortals in zvp, and zerg loses when terran gets to build enough air units in zvt). None of the proposed changes will help zerg, and nerfing drops (or ravagers, which was their original idea) hurts zergs ability to win / do enough damage early on. I think it is fairly obvious that zergs are struggling at the highest level of play right now, and that is not factoring in these changes and the new maps, which I believe will just make the situation worse. What I think needs to be changed however, is that liberator's anti air needs to be toned down, a lot. This won't effect tvt or tvp a lot I think, and would help zerg actually have a fighting chance against mass air late game - an alternate route would be to buff corrupters, which would also help vs mass protoss air (another scenario in which zerg has absolutely no chance to win once critical mass is reached). They could also buff parasitic bomb back to its original value.
Mass immortal are weak on maps that have a 3rd with two narrow exit and the attacker doesn't have to detour while switching target.
I think there's a mislead in the games that protoss wins just because they get to 3rd base.They win because they made almost no mistakes from the very start. PvZ currently allows no mistakes or you die instantly at the next wave of attack.
as we're seeing Protoss learn JUST learning to play on maps like Prion and Ulrena
Protoss has always been doing fairly good on Ulrena and getting trolleyed on Prion. Winrates in the last month are worse than 3 months ago, so i don't see the "just learning to play on" part.
as we're seeing Protoss learn JUST learning to play on maps like Prion and Ulrena
Protoss has always been doing fairly good on Ulrena and getting trolleyed on Prion. Winrates in the last month are worse than 3 months ago, so i don't see the "just learning to play on" part.
I think that's cuz protoss players are forced to play Prion now since PvZ on KCL is simply another lose.
You're never forced to play the worst balanced map w/ 3 veto's. You especially don't want to enable Prion because protoss will almost always veto it, terran will veto sometimes and zerg rarely veto's. Instead of hitting zerg 37% of the time in EU masters (representative of ladder population) it'll probably be 50%+.
It really does feel like David Kim & his team are very out of sync with what is happening with their game. As someone who catches almost all the daily tournaments & sees most of the games played in the scene - to me it appears as though David Kim & his team mostly read reddit but I doubt they see a lot of games played out. This is really worrisome as the average player posting in huge public threads there (and probably here too) are probably on average not even masters level.
He literally never references games that were played in tournaments. Or mentions unit interactions that we saw in tournament games. Hell he never even describes a situation in game where you're like 'Yeah, David, I saw that too we have to keep an eye on that'!
On the contrary, the community updates completly blow my mind. These changes are quite far off from what the game needs in my opinion.
- Overlord drops are actually fun to use - make for fun gameplay.
Nerfing this as opposed to the ravager is a poor choice, the ravager is a very bland unit that lends itself well to an A-move playstyle.
- Nerfing the liberator and buffing the banshee. 2 Completely different units, and to easily upgrade an invisible unit to be the fastest unit in the game is just ridiculous. But hell, we have the medivac tanks so can we really be surprised anymore?
I can't believe what Starcraft has come to in 2016.
Biggest current issues are zerg allins being too strong (maybe mostly related to bad maps atm). Mass immortals being too good mid game for any Zerg ground composition & Protoss late game air army being untoucheale in both matchups, PvT and PvZ.
None of this is talked about, at all. Dunno if David Kim is even aware of the actual problems w/ his game.
I don't really get why they always want to make the game faster. I'd rather just stop playing the game than getting harassed by virtually riskless speed banshees that I can't shoot down no matter what. And for the maps, I think they should have a majority of 'good maps' in the map pool, with 2 experimental maps so we can veto strategically.
Nerfing this as opposed to the ravager is a poor choice, the ravager is a very bland unit that lends itself well to an A-move playstyle.
Ravager is used a lot in ZvT which is roughly balanced if not mildly terran focused
Drop affects P earlygame (like pre-warpgate timings) but is rarely if ever used to kill terran at those timings
The Z change isn't targetted at nerfing zerg, it's about making the first 3-5 minutes of PvZ more stable and map independant
That doesn't matter. Drops are fun to use and gives satisfaction when playing. If ZvT is terran favored then maybe change something about ZvT, but dont make the game less fun overall just to achieve balance?
You end up with a balanced game that noone thinks is fun to play at all. Whats the point of that?
Mark my words, with how powerful speed Banshees were back in beta, Terran players aren't going to have to worry them not being good vs. Ultralisks, the Zerg will be toast long before they get to that. It will make 2 base Spire mandatory or some type of Hydralisk composition which almost always sucks vs. Terran.
These changes are ludicrous, so instead of buffing Protoss early game to be more stable against Zerg we just take away yet another offensive option from the game? So back to Zerg being passive against Protoss when mass Immortal is unbeatable on the ground atm it rolls Lurkers and any Roach based composition. I thought Zerg was finally going to get to go on the offense in this expansion, guess I was wrong. So instead of nerfing awful units like Kog'Maw we just nerf things that actually promote multitasking?
David seems out of synch with his own game, been like this for awhile, units like the Swarm Host, Cyclone and Colossus are untouchable and the same exact units keep getting talked about in every single balance update with nothing actually happening.
Still no word on tanks or tankivac changes
Still no word on Ultralisks being hilarious OP against Terran
Still no word on lategame air Protoss armies which are nigh unkillable
Still unused units in the game that could help fill various holes in each race easily (Nerf immortal for Colossus buffs? Nerf Liberators and buff tanks? Nerf Ultralisks and buff Swarm Hosts?) Hell one of the unused units is from the latest expansion, no way you can phrase that any other way then bad.
Still no vision from the balance team, I had hope when they were talking about concrete tank changes but these updates are a gigantic step back and completely unproductive, 75% of the update is telling us why they really like certain maps and they really don't like others, hard not to come off as critical really..
Wait, they're going to nerf liberators anti-ground AND anti-air? And possibly make upgraded banshees even faster? And they're not nerfing ravagers after all? What the hell are they doing??
Korhal Carnage Knockout - Remove the Rock Towers at main base locations - Reduce the main base ramps to the smallest size
Noooooo, that's going to make moving around the outside of the map so frustrating especially if you break down your backrocks and trying to move your entire army around. At least make it a double wide ramp with a small rock or two at the top (think bridgehead) so you can still easily depot/rax/depot wall it. I'm fine with removing the rock towers at the main ramps, although I think that plays a very interesting dynamic as well.
Honestly if Blizzard changes the map, do the double wide with 2 small rock towers at top and just move the natural closer to the main ramp so it's easier to take. That or make one of the "rock towers" at the natural entrance already down so you only have to wall off one side of the entrance for a full block.
Removing all the rock towers at the main & making it a tiny single wide ramp will ruin it. /cry.
On April 09 2016 09:04 Vandroiy wrote: My problem with trying to diversify strategies by creating new "experimental" maps is that, in the end, it will force people to use specific strategies for those maps, thus limiting players options. Playing the exact same game every time on a map is neither interesting to watch nor play.
Exactly!!!
Really upsets me how they always try to find the easy way out, and never actually addressing the true problems with the game.
They try to add variety through map styles, rather than doing their job and giving players variety in the actual gameplay.
Makes no damn sense that they design the matchups to use very specific unit compositions, and then due to backing themselves in to a corner with their unit balance, the only way they can add variety is through maps.
Pretty sure they are never going to actually fix the issues of the game... And considering all the various ways they back themselves in to a corner... anything they do now is inevitably disappointing. Unless they finally try to tackle the design issues... But again, apparently that's probably not going to happen.
On April 09 2016 13:13 CheddarToss wrote: Can't wait for the Liberator nerf.
Same. As a terran player, I've always wondered how it would be like to play the other races. Now blizzard is forcing me to learn! They truly understand what the community needs!
I think the second step you want David Kim, for nerfing Liberators AA and buffing Banshees speed is not good. That would nerf the TVP match up too much and that would buff the ZVP too much ( I am talking from the Terran point of view )
don’t want more than 1 map of this exact same type in the ladder pool
avoid a situation where only 1 map type is allowed to enter the map pool
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
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.
also, the liberator change was proposed as a response to the ravager nerf i think? now you go through with the liberator nerf, while not going through with the ravager nerf, only because you think the compensation by buffing banshees is "fun"? yet feedback shows, players disagree with that. anyways, liberator is too strong so im fine with that and i hope speed-banshee just wont be used. i just dont see the logic behind the decisions
Nerfing this as opposed to the ravager is a poor choice, the ravager is a very bland unit that lends itself well to an A-move playstyle.
Ravager is used a lot in ZvT which is roughly balanced if not mildly terran focused
Drop affects P earlygame (like pre-warpgate timings) but is rarely if ever used to kill terran at those timings
The Z change isn't targetted at nerfing zerg, it's about making the first 3-5 minutes of PvZ more stable and map independant
Nerfing zerg's drop isn't a solution. It's a knee-jerk fix. You have to ask yourself why protoss needs this change. And the answer is: protoss' early defense isn't good enough. If it was, why would you need this change? You will say you have mothership core, but it's only as good as distance between bases allows. I think the real solution is to make protoss units stronger, remove mothership core and sentries. Enough with spells to make protoss work. It's like some MMORPG game with heroes where you use spells all the time. I agree spells are fun but protoss has too many and not enough raw strength like in Brood War.
I think the best solution to strengthen Protoss early game defence is to make gateway units build faster than warp gate units. That way Protoss can get more units out early to defend their bases without making all-ins stronger.
Protoss could use this to do proxy gateway attacks of course but that is much riskier since they cannot fly those buildings home if the attack is defeated.
On April 09 2016 19:31 MockHamill wrote: I think the best solution to strengthen Protoss early game defence is to make gateway units build faster than warp gate units. That way Protoss can get more units out early to defend their bases without making all-ins stronger.
Protoss could use this to do proxy gateway attacks of course but that is much riskier since they cannot fly those buildings home if the attack is defeated.
I like this change but proxy gates would be a problem as you said.
-Blizzard is out of touch with the SC2 community about maps and balance -Blizzard doesn't understand what a standard map is, and even calls dusk towers a "unique one" in their update -Blizzard will do this minimal patch after months of waiting for actual meaningful changes, and then be slow again to patch
-Arbitrary banshee buff for literally no reason while ignoring every single other Terran thing that needs fixing -mech -tank damage -thor anti-air versus brood/bc/tempest/carrier -cyclone being an overpriced/underpowered garbage unit never seen in any games in any comp -marauder nerf revert -liberator nerf when it's the only good unit T can build past 10 minutes = Terran will suck after this nerf
-Tiniest nerf of Zerg overlord drop tech while leaving all of this bullshit alone/untouched: -8 armor ultralisk -invincible nydus worm (idiotic+frustrating) -adrenal lings -parasitic bomb (still idiotic+frustrating) -ravagers (corrosive bile nerf won't do much, still gains too many stats after morphed from roach) -corruptor piss on building ability unnecessary
-Protoss largely untouched and still has some abusive / frustrating gameplay issues -adepts are still too OP vs all races. Not a fun unit to play vs. Increase shade cooldown massively please -warp prism pick-up range overboard still -protoss unplayable versus Zerg on 99% of the map pool -protoss is a freewin versus terran due to 3rd nexus/all-ins/proxies on ladder -protoss just overall is a gimmicky race atm that either 2 base adept all-ins or turtles into mass tempest -collosus is pretty bad but if they buff it it'll be too strong -tempest 4 supply needs to be changed. This unit is too massable and annoying en masse, makes mech suck
So. Basically. None of the above are addressed, none of them ever will be at the rate that blizzard patches the game. They waited and fooled all of us for months about changes to balance, to siege tanks, to mech, etc. and they give us one tiny patch that does a nerf of overlord drops and nerfs Terrans only core unit past mid-game while ignoring 99% of the balance issues with SC2.
^and that is why i dont play this game, dont get me wrong i would love to dedicate time to a RTS game because the rts genre is the best but no rts game lives up to a good standard.
If blizzard would please just look at core issues instead of some symptoms. I completely agree, the only reason zerg drops needs to be nerfed is because protoss defence is just badly designed and yes it means the defence protoss has in the early game is still boring as hell!
I'm just very dissatisfied with the state of the game overall. As a terran you're forced into one composition every single game and on top of that that composition is on a timer in that you have to win before the opponent gets to ultra/broodlord/viper or tempest/templar/disruptor. So the only strategic diversity is if you're doing a 2 base allin or a 3 base allin
Mass air battles are cancerous to play and every matchup turns into that in the lategame, tvt is a shitfest with the player who drops his tanks first in a good position instantly winning.
in pvz protoss has to open phoenix every game and then the game turns into both players macroing up for 10 minutes just to be decided by 1 deathball fight.
Personally I think the game is in its worst state ever and it will be very difficult to fix it if blizzard has any interest in that.
the community updates are very dissapointing with DK mentioning promising changes to tanks and thors only to never mention them again and hope people forget about them.
banshee buff is dumb and will not compensate any kind of lib nerf, the same way the small tank buff didn't compensate the mine nerf back in HotS. I predict TvP will be close to impossible to win vs competent Protosses now.
EDIT : on second thought maybe the lib nerf will allow for a tempest nerf, which would actually end up being good for the game, because I believe it'll be far easier to play around 4 radius liberators even without air. But they never talked about nerfind that dumb unit that is the tempest to the ground.
On April 09 2016 20:37 [PkF] Wire wrote: banshee buff is dumb and will not compensate any kind of lib nerf, the same way the small tank buff didn't compensate the mine nerf back in HotS. I predict TvP will be close to impossible to win vs competent Protosses now.
EDIT : on second thought maybe the lib nerf will allow for a tempest nerf, which would actually end up being good for the game, because I believe it'll be far easier to play around 4 radius liberators even without air. But they never talked about nerfind that dumb unit that is the tempest to the ground.
Tempest is a dumb unit, but it is necessary against liberators with upgrade and broodlords. It's already bad against ground units, you can't nerf it more.
On April 09 2016 20:37 [PkF] Wire wrote: banshee buff is dumb and will not compensate any kind of lib nerf, the same way the small tank buff didn't compensate the mine nerf back in HotS. I predict TvP will be close to impossible to win vs competent Protosses now.
EDIT : on second thought maybe the lib nerf will allow for a tempest nerf, which would actually end up being good for the game, because I believe it'll be far easier to play around 4 radius liberators even without air. But they never talked about nerfind that dumb unit that is the tempest to the ground.
Tempest is a dumb unit, but it is necessary against liberators with upgrade and broodlords. It's already bad against ground units, you can't nerf it more.
6 supply as others suggested would make a lot of sense. And vs nerfed liberators (take away the upgrade if needed) you wouldn't need them as much.
By the way I wonder where they're seeing "agreement" that a lib nerf should be compensated with a -quite ridiculous- banshee buff. I won't say I've read every answer in this thread thoroughly, but it seemed to me almost everyone was criticizing this idea -even when it was first proposed. A lib nerf should be compensated with a tempest nerf and an ultra nerf, that's actually quite simple.
On April 09 2016 21:04 [PkF] Wire wrote: By the way I wonder where they're seeing "agreement" that a lib nerf should be compensated with a -quite ridiculous- banshee buff. I won't say I've read every answer in this thread thoroughly, but it seemed to me almost everyone was criticizing this idea -even when it was first proposed. A lib nerf should be compensated with a tempest nerf and an ultra nerf, that's actually quite simple.
I haven't seen anyone aside from Dayvie say that buffing banshees like that while nerfing libs was a good idea.
On April 09 2016 21:04 [PkF] Wire wrote: By the way I wonder where they're seeing "agreement" that a lib nerf should be compensated with a -quite ridiculous- banshee buff. I won't say I've read every answer in this thread thoroughly, but it seemed to me almost everyone was criticizing this idea -even when it was first proposed. A lib nerf should be compensated with a tempest nerf and an ultra nerf, that's actually quite simple.
I haven't seen anyone aside from Dayvie say that buffing banshees like that while nerfing libs was a good idea.
On April 09 2016 21:04 [PkF] Wire wrote: By the way I wonder where they're seeing "agreement" that a lib nerf should be compensated with a -quite ridiculous- banshee buff. I won't say I've read every answer in this thread thoroughly, but it seemed to me almost everyone was criticizing this idea -even when it was first proposed. A lib nerf should be compensated with a tempest nerf and an ultra nerf, that's actually quite simple.
I haven't seen anyone aside from Dayvie say that buffing banshees like that while nerfing libs was a good idea.
Then I'm not crazy
I have to say I was very excited by the beginning of LotV, but now the dust has settled a bit, I have to concede I struggle to see improvements in any non mirror match-ups compared to HotS. PvZ is very one dimensional and P has no versatiliy past the early game, same can be said for Z. ZvT will become even worse if speed banshees ever make it to the game. And PvT is as frustrating as ever for T players. They think quick small steps are needed, I vastly disagree. I think the hammer nerf should hit hard on a lot of problematic things (tempests, adepts, immortals, liberators, ultras, nydus, etc).
As explained in a previous weekly update, the idea behind buffing banshee is not to buff terran harass possibilities, but to make various comp of bio/mech viable. But the speed upgrade won't reach that goal. Maybe an idea could be to have a fusion core upgrade that extends Banshees' range and damage, to let them stand behind the bioball during a fight.
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.
On April 09 2016 21:17 Sc2Earth wrote: As explained in a previous weekly update, the idea behind buffing banshee is not to buff terran harass possibilities, but to make various comp of bio/mech viable.
I don't know how Blizzard sees Banshees against Zerg. They deal wayyyy too little damage to deny Ultralisk, and are extremely micro intensive, especially on top of a bio ball. Meanwhile, there's these 20 armor fucking amove tanks wrecking everything you hold dear.
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.
Sadly, Blizzard believes in super fast speed. From HotS to LotV: very fast mutas, very fast oracle, very fast medivac and very fast banshee.
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.
Sadly, Blizzard believes in super fast speed. From HotS to LotV: very fast mutas, very fast oracle, very fast medivac and very fast banshee.
All the things you pointed out are very problematic and the fast banshee will be no exception.
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.
Sadly, Blizzard believes in super fast speed. From HotS to LotV: very fast mutas, very fast oracle, very fast medivac and very fast banshee.
time for a DT speed buff :D I wonder why that didn't make it into the game.
I have actually stopped watching SC2 completely due to bio is being the only viable playstyle. (I still play the game though).
Seing MMM + Liberators every game is just not fun.
In HOTS the game was in a much better state. Bio was viable in all 3 matchups and mech was viable in 2 matchups. I remember watching Taeja vs Innovation, bio vs mech, it is probably one of the best games I have ever seen.
TvT in Hots was beautiful. We had: Bio vs Bio Mech vs Mech Bio vs Mech
Now we just have Bio vs Bio
It gets really boring fast, both to watch and play.
I can't believe how many delusional terran players there are in this thread, it is honestly frightening. I really don't mean for this post to come off as bad mannered, but I think certain people need to seriously re-evaluate the state of the game atm, and as such I will address a few comments made in this thread: Firstly, people complaining that there is no diversity in tvz are plain wrong, sky terran has been seeing more and more play, and not only is it viable, it appears to be absolutely unstoppable if you get to critical mass, much like air units in pvz - don't believe me? Here are two RECENT examples, where the S tier zergs look HOPELESS, even with near infinite eco and tech.
Maru vs Leenock in Proleague round 1 playoffs: Maru vs Solar in Proleague round 2
Which brings me to my next point, tvz is NOT on a timer, terran does NOT automatically lose to ultras, in fact as we can see from these two scenarios, terrans absolutely demolish late game zerg compositions, even with the "op" viper, corrupter, bl and infesters. Furthermore, TvZ is quite terran favoured at the highest level of play, if you combine SPL round 1+2 with GSL code S, Terran is 35-22, a ~61.5% win rate. Lastly, complaining about cyclones being so weak that they are not seeing any play is incorrect, lots of terrans are building them early game in both tvt and tvp to either kill vikings, medivacs or oracles, etc - sure they tend to only build one or two, but what happens if you compare this to the amount of swarm hosts built in games? A unit that ACTUALLY sees ZERO play.
In conclusion, I think that there is a worrying trend on tl.net and other such forums where people, in particularly terran players, are clearly blinded by their own incompetence and they seemingly don't follow professional gaming close enough to comment on the actual state of the game.
On April 09 2016 23:01 Avi-Love wrote: Which brings me to my next point, tvz is NOT on a timer,
Watch pro games 95% of terran wins come from allins/timings while once the zerg is established on 4-5 bases with 3/3 hive and ultras they almost always win. It's very predictable to watch at the moment, past a certain time you know the zerg is gonna win. 1-2 games where terran won in the lategame doesn't prove the opposite.
I would like to point that on map subject, Prion should be changed again.
This map is not OK. Last change only achieved a 68% to 64% change in the ZvP win rates. Only time we saw a pro Korean P beating a Z on this map lately is Patience vs Ragnarok in SSL and Dream vs Departure in SPL round 1.
It's safe to say that P and are avoiding this map like plague, they always veto it in code S when a Z is in the group (not a single ZvP or ZvT played on this map this season!!!) SPL removed it and poor Trap had to give free wins to Solar and Dark in SSL finals.
I don't mind it being on the ladder, we have vetos and silly games can be also fun when you play casually, but seing it again in it's current configuration in a premier tournament would be a disgrace.
This map is like a weird and awkward animal, it has to evolve or disappear.
On April 09 2016 23:01 Avi-Love wrote: Which brings me to my next point, tvz is NOT on a timer,
Watch pro games 95% of terran wins come from allins/timings while once the zerg is established on 4-5 bases with 3/3 hive and ultras they almost always win. It's very predictable to watch at the moment, past a certain time you know the zerg is gonna win. 1-2 games where terran won in the lategame doesn't prove the opposite.
Because most games terrans actually play to end the game in the midgame, which is a good way to play ofcourse because terran has a slight edge in the midgame.
We are gonna have to see more of this airstyle though before we can make any statements about it though.
On April 09 2016 21:49 PinoKotsBeer wrote: Really Blizzard? nerfing the liberator is top priority at this moment?
Not sure to laugh or cry....
What else is, if not Liberators? I haven't seen a Protoss make 15-20 Distruptors. I also haven't seen a Zerg mass only Ultras. But I have seen a lot of Terrans with most of their supply in Liberators. Obviously this unit is ridiculous. And the worst thing is, it's very easy to use for how strong it is in every imaginable situation. Lib harass? Just shift click and don't worry about it, while the opponent has to scramble for a minute to take it out due to range and bad map layout behind the mineral line. Haven't positioned your Lib zones well? No biggie, they only take a second to unsiege and siege again. Caught out of position with your Libs? Don't worry, they are fast as lighting.
TLDR version: this unit is simply too good at everything and needs to get nerfed hard. Should it prove too much, Terran should be buffed in another area.
So basically, they want remove all the new offensive tools of zerg? I am not against this AA nerf on liberators even if it still make muta flock useless and that's shame, mutalingbane is the best compo to play with and against but I guess it is still a progress... For the banshee buff, well, it is not because something strong is used that you must make another unit even stronger! He might no be op but I don't like this logic. And for late game tvp, the liberators will be pretty useless, does not seem fair but this is not a MU I used to play so...
On April 09 2016 21:49 PinoKotsBeer wrote: Really Blizzard? nerfing the liberator is top priority at this moment?
Not sure to laugh or cry....
What else is, if not Liberators? I haven't seen a Protoss make 15-20 Distruptors. I also haven't seen a Zerg mass only Ultras. But I have seen a lot of Terrans with most of their supply in Liberators. Obviously this unit is ridiculous. And the worst thing is, it's very easy to use for how strong it is in every imaginable situation. Lib harass? Just shift click and don't worry about it, while the opponent has to scramble for a minute to take it out due to range and bad map layout behind the mineral line. Haven't positioned your Lib zones well? No biggie, they only take a second to unsiege and siege again. Caught out of position with your Libs? Don't worry, they are fast as lighting.
TLDR version: this unit is simply too good at everything and needs to get nerfed hard. Should it prove too much, Terran should be buffed in another area.
Do you hear me say the liberators shouldnt nerfed? No, i did not state that. Top priority is imho pvz and such. And regarding the liberator itself, yes its very strong and it should be nerfed at a certain moment. YES, a terran would like to see them nerfed. But you have to see the bigger pictures because that is lacking in your comment. What other terran unit is decent? oh wait, more bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio , did i say bio? because the synergy of the other units isnt there. Think about production, upgrades etc. Thats why you see mass liberators, because its the only good thing terran has. Many many topics and comments are written about liberators etc, not worth the time to repeat everything if you are soley focussed on 1 unit. And terrans not to "worry" about an unit is nice a change ....... And plenty of zergs with +20 corruptors or a toss with 15 tempests etc.
On April 09 2016 21:49 PinoKotsBeer wrote: Really Blizzard? nerfing the liberator is top priority at this moment?
Not sure to laugh or cry....
What else is, if not Liberators? I haven't seen a Protoss make 15-20 Distruptors. I also haven't seen a Zerg mass only Ultras. But I have seen a lot of Terrans with most of their supply in Liberators. Obviously this unit is ridiculous. And the worst thing is, it's very easy to use for how strong it is in every imaginable situation. Lib harass? Just shift click and don't worry about it, while the opponent has to scramble for a minute to take it out due to range and bad map layout behind the mineral line. Haven't positioned your Lib zones well? No biggie, they only take a second to unsiege and siege again. Caught out of position with your Libs? Don't worry, they are fast as lighting.
TLDR version: this unit is simply too good at everything and needs to get nerfed hard. Should it prove too much, Terran should be buffed in another area.
I would like to see the 2013 mines again, this gave a few of the best tvz of sc2 But as a spectator, i enjoy watching libe in tvp!
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.
Sadly, Blizzard believes in super fast speed. From HotS to LotV: very fast mutas, very fast oracle, very fast medivac and very fast banshee.
time for a DT speed buff :D I wonder why that didn't make it into the game.
Well, they're adding it to the game. It's just a terran unit called banshee. Flying dt although it doesn't have permanent cloak. :D
On April 09 2016 23:01 Avi-Love wrote: I can't believe how many delusional terran players there are in this thread, it is honestly frightening. I really don't mean for this post to come off as bad mannered, but I think certain people need to seriously re-evaluate the state of the game atm, and as such I will address a few comments made in this thread:
my fav race is terran. i've played more terran than any other race by far. however, i get higher on the ladder playing Zerg. 150 APM and lower players must accept the fact that if they pick Terran they'll end up lower on the ladder. it really doesnt matter to me because i end up with a 50/50 win/loss record with both Zerg and Terran.
Terran just requires higher APM and that's it. If guy's like Avilo want to win money in WCS events they'll have to move to Zerg because they're APM just isn't there for Terran at top level. Instead guys in Avilo's situation often just whine about the "game design".
On April 09 2016 23:01 Avi-Love wrote: I can't believe how many delusional terran players there are in this thread, it is honestly frightening. I really don't mean for this post to come off as bad mannered, but I think certain people need to seriously re-evaluate the state of the game atm, and as such I will address a few comments made in this thread: Firstly, people complaining that there is no diversity in tvz are plain wrong, sky terran has been seeing more and more play, and not only is it viable, it appears to be absolutely unstoppable if you get to critical mass, much like air units in pvz - don't believe me? Here are two RECENT examples, where the S tier zergs look HOPELESS, even with near infinite eco and tech.
Which brings me to my next point, tvz is NOT on a timer, terran does NOT automatically lose to ultras, in fact as we can see from these two scenarios, terrans absolutely demolish late game zerg compositions, even with the "op" viper, corrupter, bl and infesters. Furthermore, TvZ is quite terran favoured at the highest level of play, if you combine SPL round 1+2 with GSL code S, Terran is 35-22, a ~61.5% win rate. Lastly, complaining about cyclones being so weak that they are not seeing any play is incorrect, lots of terrans are building them early game in both tvt and tvp to either kill vikings, medivacs or oracles, etc - sure they tend to only build one or two, but what happens if you compare this to the amount of swarm hosts built in games? A unit that ACTUALLY sees ZERO play.
In conclusion, I think that there is a worrying trend on tl.net and other such forums where people, in particularly terran players, are clearly blinded by their own incompetence and they seemingly don't follow professional gaming close enough to comment on the actual state of the game.
This comment is garbage. A trend which occurs often, a person comes in here to say that alot of people are wrong and then say really bad things himself.
Comparing cyclones to swarmhosts are irrelevant. The cyclone which is a new unit in lotv sees VERY little play. Key word here is VERY little play so dont focus on the new unit part. And if terran can make air a viable strategy, lots of people dont care about that. In fact, lots of people want this air style gone cuz its very boring for the game. Both to play and to watch.
On April 09 2016 21:49 PinoKotsBeer wrote: Really Blizzard? nerfing the liberator is top priority at this moment?
Not sure to laugh or cry....
What else is, if not Liberators? I haven't seen a Protoss make 15-20 Distruptors. I also haven't seen a Zerg mass only Ultras. But I have seen a lot of Terrans with most of their supply in Liberators. Obviously this unit is ridiculous. And the worst thing is, it's very easy to use for how strong it is in every imaginable situation. Lib harass? Just shift click and don't worry about it, while the opponent has to scramble for a minute to take it out due to range and bad map layout behind the mineral line. Haven't positioned your Lib zones well? No biggie, they only take a second to unsiege and siege again. Caught out of position with your Libs? Don't worry, they are fast as lighting.
TLDR version: this unit is simply too good at everything and needs to get nerfed hard. Should it prove too much, Terran should be buffed in another area.
Do you hear me say the liberators shouldnt nerfed? No, i did not state that. Top priority is imho pvz and such. And regarding the liberator itself, yes its very strong and it should be nerfed at a certain moment. YES, a terran would like to see them nerfed. But you have to see the bigger pictures because that is lacking in your comment. What other terran unit is decent? oh wait, more bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio bio , did i say bio? because the synergy of the other units isnt there. Think about production, upgrades etc. Thats why you see mass liberators, because its the only good thing terran has. Many many topics and comments are written about liberators etc, not worth the time to repeat everything if you are soley focussed on 1 unit. And terrans not to "worry" about an unit is nice a change ....... And plenty of zergs with +20 corruptors or a toss with 15 tempests etc.
Well, that's why I said that something else should get buffed. I'm all for the Siege Tank buff and removing that siege mode pickup. However I'm not sure how to prevent super strong 2 base bio/tank all-ins, after such a buff.
The thing is, I don't think that Bio and Mech can be viable, because if both are good, than bio/tank timings are going to be crazy strong. So there needs to be some nerf that will not hit any particular unit, but reduce synergy between bio and the tank.
First of all why does it matter if it's a new unit? Marines and Zerglings are old units so should they see less play? If not, why is it relevant? The unit clearly has a place in the game, as people actually produce it (unlike the swarm host). I think cyclones are a lot like reapers, you tend to make 1, the reaper for scouting, the cyclone to be safe against things like oracles, vikings, etc etc. And are you seriously trying to argue that people think air style is boring, but the very same people want to turtle mech and think that is exciting? I hope you realise how ridiculous your argument is here -- turtling on mass air and turtling mech are both VERY similar playstyles, and they produce equal amounts of "excitement" (which in my opinion is very little). Everyone here is asking for mech buffs, whining about zerg being on a timer (which I already established as false) etc etc.
On April 09 2016 23:01 Avi-Love wrote: Which brings me to my next point, tvz is NOT on a timer,
Watch pro games 95% of terran wins come from allins/timings while once the zerg is established on 4-5 bases with 3/3 hive and ultras they almost always win. It's very predictable to watch at the moment, past a certain time you know the zerg is gonna win. 1-2 games where terran won in the lategame doesn't prove the opposite.
95% of terran wins come from allins / timings is a vast overrestimation, but even if that was the case, it is not because terran is weak in the late game, it's because zerg is weak before specific timings -- why do you think zergs have a 30% win rate in zvt in Code S? Because ultras are imbalanced....? There are two points in zvt where zerg is strong (read strong, not ''omg imbalance, immortal, impossible to beat'') and that is 1) if you're nearing max on roach/ravager and terran is not at a high enough unit count to overcome the supply ineffeciency of roach/ravager, and 2) when you first get out 4-5 ultras with chitinous and 1-2 upgrades. Outside of these two windows of opportunity zerg is weaker than terran, and overall zerg is clearly weaker than terran - this is further exacerbated by terran having access to an unbeatable late game airstyle, which is not good - neither when it comes to balance nor entertainment.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
On April 09 2016 23:01 Avi-Love wrote: I can't believe how many delusional terran players there are in this thread, it is honestly frightening. I really don't mean for this post to come off as bad mannered, but I think certain people need to seriously re-evaluate the state of the game atm, and as such I will address a few comments made in this thread: Firstly, people complaining that there is no diversity in tvz are plain wrong, sky terran has been seeing more and more play, and not only is it viable, it appears to be absolutely unstoppable if you get to critical mass, much like air units in pvz - don't believe me? Here are two RECENT examples, where the S tier zergs look HOPELESS, even with near infinite eco and tech.
Which brings me to my next point, tvz is NOT on a timer, terran does NOT automatically lose to ultras, in fact as we can see from these two scenarios, terrans absolutely demolish late game zerg compositions, even with the "op" viper, corrupter, bl and infesters. Furthermore, TvZ is quite terran favoured at the highest level of play, if you combine SPL round 1+2 with GSL code S, Terran is 35-22, a ~61.5% win rate. Lastly, complaining about cyclones being so weak that they are not seeing any play is incorrect, lots of terrans are building them early game in both tvt and tvp to either kill vikings, medivacs or oracles, etc - sure they tend to only build one or two, but what happens if you compare this to the amount of swarm hosts built in games? A unit that ACTUALLY sees ZERO play.
In conclusion, I think that there is a worrying trend on tl.net and other such forums where people, in particularly terran players, are clearly blinded by their own incompetence and they seemingly don't follow professional gaming close enough to comment on the actual state of the game.
Aside from those 2 games, can you give other examples of skyterran crushing zergs in the highest level of play? Because according to what you're saying, Blizzard is about to completely kill skyterran and force their bio meta, because of 2 games only. That's assuming that as you imply, they only balance the game based on the highest level of play.
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 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:
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.
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.
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 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.
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 03:17 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 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.
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 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 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 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?
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 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.
Everyone care about bronze to diamond player. But no one should balance or design around these players, because it's just meaningless for a competitive RTS. Among these player there is an enormous disparity of skills, there will be a infinite amount of things they are going to call gimmicky, annoying and badly design. Whatever happens, in a competitive game like starcraft 2 with such a high skill ceiling it's just inevitable, the only way to avoid it is to make the game completely stupid and remove any depth it has.
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.
Everyone care about bronze to diamond player. But no one should balance or design around these players, because it's just meaningless for a competitive RTS. Among these player there is an enormous disparity of skills, there will be a infinite amount of things they are going to call gimmicky, annoying and badly design. Whatever happens, in a competitive game like starcraft 2 with such a high skill ceiling it's just inevitable, the only way to avoid it is to make the game completely stupid and remove any depth it has.
Noone said to balance around bronzies. I didn't play BW back in the day, but from what I understand it was relatively balanced in all levels of play because it didn't rely on gimmicks. Less reliance on stupid, dissapointing gimmicks doesn't mean balancing the game around bronze players.
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.
I agree that Taeja vs Innnovation was amazing action. Mech vs Bio.
On April 10 2016 08:54 PressureSC2 wrote: In my view the game can be designed for the masses and still balanced for the top 0.01%.
But this flies in the face of the few staunch defenders this game has left. They're convinced that the 'hardcoreness' of SC2 stems from how obnoxious it is on the average level of play. I ceased playing multiplayer back in HotS, because the game was just getting frustrating to play, and LotV just made that worse. The masses are being left behind, because Blizzard has no clue what makes a true esport.
On April 10 2016 08:54 PressureSC2 wrote: In my view the game can be designed for the masses and still balanced for the top 0.01%.
But this flies in the face of the few staunch defenders this game has left. They're convinced that the 'hardcoreness' of SC2 stems from how obnoxious it is on the average level of play. I ceased playing multiplayer back in HotS, because the game was just getting frustrating to play, and LotV just made that worse. The masses are being left behind, because Blizzard has no clue what makes a true esport.
Not trying to nag you, but what would make SC2 a "true esport" in your opinion?
On April 10 2016 08:54 PressureSC2 wrote: In my view the game can be designed for the masses and still balanced for the top 0.01%.
But this flies in the face of the few staunch defenders this game has left. They're convinced that the 'hardcoreness' of SC2 stems from how obnoxious it is on the average level of play. I ceased playing multiplayer back in HotS, because the game was just getting frustrating to play, and LotV just made that worse. The masses are being left behind, because Blizzard has no clue what makes a true esport.
No such thing as 'true esport'. And that's exactly the problem with the game at the moment. What are the most popular esports at the moment? Propably dota, lol and csgo? Maybe throw some fighting games in there like smash or street fighter? Which one of these games was designed to be an esport? None of them. They spawned pro scenes because they were fun to play and alot of people played them. What Blizzard is doing with LOTV is the opposite. They're trying too hard to make an esport, instead of a fun game. You can't force these things and that's why the game is basically a husk of it's former self.
Heum. If CS:GO wasn't designed to be an esport, then Henri the 8th was a model husband.
Problem with LOTV is that not only is it poorly designed as a whole. Just look at what WOL brung to the table compared to BW : - reaper : very simple design. A fast scout unit that can jump cliff but is long to produce and gaz heavy. - viking : very simple design. A long range air superiority fighter, that's fragile but can land. - marauder : very simple design. An addition that synergise very well with the marine and can slow passively. - phoenix : very simple design. Fast air superiority fighter with a very simple and limited harass ability - roach : very simple design. Bulky massable cheap unit with low dps
etc etc. Those were units that were fine because they had interesting behavior, and didn't rely on gimmicky abilities to be efficient. Even the phenix, without the beam is an interesting unit ! Now look at units like the disruptor : it's only usefull when you use its ability. Look at the ravager, only usefull when you spamm its ability. Look at the cyclone,that a complete waste of money if you don't abuse its ability.
WOL was about units that add an interesting behavior and interaction with other units, AND MAYBE had some kind of active ability that could increase their potential. In LOTV, you're forced into using the ability for the unit to be worth it. And maybe that's why, even after only 5 months, the game is already so stale.
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.
Everyone care about bronze to diamond player. But no one should balance or design around these players, because it's just meaningless for a competitive RTS. Among these player there is an enormous disparity of skills, there will be a infinite amount of things they are going to call gimmicky, annoying and badly design. Whatever happens, in a competitive game like starcraft 2 with such a high skill ceiling it's just inevitable, the only way to avoid it is to make the game completely stupid and remove any depth it has.
Noone said to balance around bronzies. I didn't play BW back in the day, but from what I understand it was relatively balanced in all levels of play because it didn't rely on gimmicks. Less reliance on stupid, dissapointing gimmicks doesn't mean balancing the game around bronze players.
i only played BW casually, but from what I understand protoss is super op at low levels.
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.
Everyone care about bronze to diamond player. But no one should balance or design around these players, because it's just meaningless for a competitive RTS. Among these player there is an enormous disparity of skills, there will be a infinite amount of things they are going to call gimmicky, annoying and badly design. Whatever happens, in a competitive game like starcraft 2 with such a high skill ceiling it's just inevitable, the only way to avoid it is to make the game completely stupid and remove any depth it has.
Noone said to balance around bronzies. I didn't play BW back in the day, but from what I understand it was relatively balanced in all levels of play because it didn't rely on gimmicks. Less reliance on stupid, dissapointing gimmicks doesn't mean balancing the game around bronze players.
i only played BW casually, but from what I understand protoss is super op at low levels.
P is not OP at low levels, it's only easier to control. But noob T or Z can beat noob P no problem, they just tend to have moments of fail micro more often. The one match that's really really hard to control is TvZ... In TvP, you'll see noob P get a lot of units slaughtered in bad engagements, in ZvP also sometimes (failed storms, HT killed, slaughtered by lurkers or ultras, etc). There is nothing like "P is OP at low levels". The game is mostly balanced on a strategic, design level, rather than player-skill-meta level. Balancing the design instead of the meta is of course the smarter and more stable approach, it brings quality, diversity and depth to the game (which translates into fun) rather than 50% winrates in unstable match ups full of knowledge and speed checks.
On April 10 2016 08:54 PressureSC2 wrote: In my view the game can be designed for the masses and still balanced for the top 0.01%.
But this flies in the face of the few staunch defenders this game has left. They're convinced that the 'hardcoreness' of SC2 stems from how obnoxious it is on the average level of play. I ceased playing multiplayer back in HotS, because the game was just getting frustrating to play, and LotV just made that worse. The masses are being left behind, because Blizzard has no clue what makes a true esport.
No such thing as 'true esport'. And that's exactly the problem with the game at the moment. What are the most popular esports at the moment? Propably dota, lol and csgo? Maybe throw some fighting games in there like smash or street fighter? Which one of these games was designed to be an esport? None of them. They spawned pro scenes because they were fun to play and alot of people played them. What Blizzard is doing with LOTV is the opposite. They're trying too hard to make an esport, instead of a fun game. You can't force these things and that's why the game is basically a husk of it's former self.
I think it's a bit more complicated than this. The original Counterstrike and DotA weren't meant to become million dollar esports titles. It just happened that they got popular and their core principles were presevered and redesigned and rebalanced for esports purposes. LoL, as far as I understand from the one or other design blog I have read, has been created as an esport to begin with and the ongoing patch-philosophy supports that further.
SC2 on the other hand tries to fight a mouse-problem with cats and a cat problem with snakes and then somehow the designers hope that there will be an equilibrium. The reality is that neither hellbats nor widow mines could make Mech viable against Immortals, Tempests just swung the endgame superarmy balance from (Broodlordbased) Zerg being favored to (Tempestbased) Protoss being favored and ideas like Ultralisks completely shutting down bio in combats while Terran gets a few tools to hardcounter them make for anticlimactic experiences.
Watching the development process of SC2 I feel like that between visionary type of designers that like to create content (e.g. Dustin Browder) and balance managers that like to analyse the existing potential (e.g David Kim) the game is lacking an engineer that builds the bridges between vision and reality.
On April 10 2016 21:04 JackONeill wrote: Heum. If CS:GO wasn't designed to be an esport, then Henri the 8th was a model husband. .
counterstrike was a custom game mode made for a shooter Half Life, just like dota. Both recieved massive popularity..
The difference between Cs -> Cs:Go is that valve basically changed nothing about the gameplay itself. They just remade the game on a platform for e sports and great graphics.
People hate on blizzard too much. They could have done a better job, sure, but its a strategy game in 2014. If you bring out a broodwar 2.0 people are going to be even more dissapointed, if you dont people will also be dissapointed.
I agree that they should have focused on making sc2 more fun.
Its way too fast for pro gamers to play properly. Imagine the game at 50% speed. Do you really think you would reach a skill cap in it? -
On April 10 2016 08:54 PressureSC2 wrote: In my view the game can be designed for the masses and still balanced for the top 0.01%.
But this flies in the face of the few staunch defenders this game has left. They're convinced that the 'hardcoreness' of SC2 stems from how obnoxious it is on the average level of play. I ceased playing multiplayer back in HotS, because the game was just getting frustrating to play, and LotV just made that worse. The masses are being left behind, because Blizzard has no clue what makes a true esport.
No such thing as 'true esport'. And that's exactly the problem with the game at the moment. What are the most popular esports at the moment? Propably dota, lol and csgo? Maybe throw some fighting games in there like smash or street fighter? Which one of these games was designed to be an esport? None of them. They spawned pro scenes because they were fun to play and alot of people played them. What Blizzard is doing with LOTV is the opposite. They're trying too hard to make an esport, instead of a fun game. You can't force these things and that's why the game is basically a husk of it's former self.
I think it's a bit more complicated than this. The original Counterstrike and DotA weren't meant to become million dollar esports titles. It just happened that they got popular and their core principles were presevered and redesigned and rebalanced for esports purposes. LoL, as far as I understand from the one or other design blog I have read, has been created as an esport to begin with and the ongoing patch-philosophy supports that further.
SC2 on the other hand tries to fight a mouse-problem with cats and a cat problem with snakes and then somehow the designers hope that there will be an equilibrium. The reality is that neither hellbats nor widow mines could make Mech viable against Immortals, Tempests just swung the endgame superarmy balance from (Broodlordbased) Zerg being favored to (Tempestbased) Protoss being favored and ideas like Ultralisks completely shutting down bio in combats while Terran gets a few tools to hardcounter them make for anticlimactic experiences.
Watching the development process of SC2 I feel like that between visionary type of designers that like to create content (e.g. Dustin Browder) and balance managers that like to analyse the existing potential (e.g David Kim) the game is lacking an engineer that builds the bridges between vision and reality.
As someone who did play LoL right after the beta was done, I can easily say, they did not create the game to be an 'esport'. They didn't even have rank/ladder games when I first started, only adding that mid-way through the first year. There was no visible ranking system for a good time. So it's closer to Counterstrike & DoTa, becoming popular first then tweaking for esports purposes.
But I agree with how they been handling SC2, that cycle just making counter's against one another has not help make this a better designed game. And their balance philosophy does not help create a better designed game. Their minimalistic approach to simply reach that 50/50 win ratio generally ignores the actual gameplay and how people feel being in those gameplay.
On April 10 2016 21:04 JackONeill wrote: Heum. If CS:GO wasn't designed to be an esport, then Henri the 8th was a model husband.
Problem with LOTV is that not only is it poorly designed as a whole. Just look at what WOL brung to the table compared to BW : - reaper : very simple design. A fast scout unit that can jump cliff but is long to produce and gaz heavy. - viking : very simple design. A long range air superiority fighter, that's fragile but can land. - marauder : very simple design. An addition that synergise very well with the marine and can slow passively. - phoenix : very simple design. Fast air superiority fighter with a very simple and limited harass ability - roach : very simple design. Bulky massable cheap unit with low dps
etc etc. Those were units that were fine because they had interesting behavior, and didn't rely on gimmicky abilities to be efficient. Even the phenix, without the beam is an interesting unit ! Now look at units like the disruptor : it's only usefull when you use its ability. Look at the ravager, only usefull when you spamm its ability. Look at the cyclone,that a complete waste of money if you don't abuse its ability.
WOL was about units that add an interesting behavior and interaction with other units, AND MAYBE had some kind of active ability that could increase their potential. In LOTV, you're forced into using the ability for the unit to be worth it. And maybe that's why, even after only 5 months, the game is already so stale.
Ahhhh nostalgia... WOL was about broodlords, infestor mate
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).
there were a motherfucktonne of giant design mistakes during the dawn of the genre. the genre grew in the face of all those bad mistakes because watching 100 units kill each other simultaneously on screen was such a buzz. that's over now... i can watch that on my smart phone.
and if your claim is the genre grew because of great design.. well C&C1 and Warcraft1 are still out there. Great design makes for a timeless classic. Go play them.
On April 10 2016 21:04 JackONeill wrote: Heum. If CS:GO wasn't designed to be an esport, then Henri the 8th was a model husband.
Problem with LOTV is that not only is it poorly designed as a whole. Just look at what WOL brung to the table compared to BW : - reaper : very simple design. A fast scout unit that can jump cliff but is long to produce and gaz heavy. - viking : very simple design. A long range air superiority fighter, that's fragile but can land. - marauder : very simple design. An addition that synergise very well with the marine and can slow passively. - phoenix : very simple design. Fast air superiority fighter with a very simple and limited harass ability - roach : very simple design. Bulky massable cheap unit with low dps
etc etc. Those were units that were fine because they had interesting behavior, and didn't rely on gimmicky abilities to be efficient. Even the phenix, without the beam is an interesting unit ! Now look at units like the disruptor : it's only usefull when you use its ability. Look at the ravager, only usefull when you spamm its ability. Look at the cyclone,that a complete waste of money if you don't abuse its ability.
WOL was about units that add an interesting behavior and interaction with other units, AND MAYBE had some kind of active ability that could increase their potential. In LOTV, you're forced into using the ability for the unit to be worth it. And maybe that's why, even after only 5 months, the game is already so stale.
Ahhhh nostalgia... WOL was about broodlords, infestor mate
Yeah I feel like he's completely wearing the nostalgia glasses. Marauders were always a badly designed unit, reapers were completely useless after a while, roaches were either amassed or simply not built, vikings were there to counter specifically one unit etc.
That being said, I completely agree with avilo, and that says something. Patching needs to happen more frequently, more "harshly", and should be part of the game. The times where people can have fun with the same build of a game for 10 years are over, games need to live & breathe.
But not only the frequency, the impact of these changes should be big. Removing units should be an option for Blizzard! How come units like the colossus still exist in the game?
But I can only see that happening if Blizzard finally switches the business model to a microtransaction one. If income comes in constantly instead of only at the release of singleplayer content, it would allow Blizzard to invest more into the "StarCraft as a service" type of patching.
On April 10 2016 21:04 JackONeill wrote: Heum. If CS:GO wasn't designed to be an esport, then Henri the 8th was a model husband.
Problem with LOTV is that not only is it poorly designed as a whole. Just look at what WOL brung to the table compared to BW : - reaper : very simple design. A fast scout unit that can jump cliff but is long to produce and gaz heavy. - viking : very simple design. A long range air superiority fighter, that's fragile but can land. - marauder : very simple design. An addition that synergise very well with the marine and can slow passively. - phoenix : very simple design. Fast air superiority fighter with a very simple and limited harass ability - roach : very simple design. Bulky massable cheap unit with low dps
etc etc. Those were units that were fine because they had interesting behavior, and didn't rely on gimmicky abilities to be efficient. Even the phenix, without the beam is an interesting unit ! Now look at units like the disruptor : it's only usefull when you use its ability. Look at the ravager, only usefull when you spamm its ability. Look at the cyclone,that a complete waste of money if you don't abuse its ability.
WOL was about units that add an interesting behavior and interaction with other units, AND MAYBE had some kind of active ability that could increase their potential. In LOTV, you're forced into using the ability for the unit to be worth it. And maybe that's why, even after only 5 months, the game is already so stale.
Ahhhh nostalgia... WOL was about broodlords, infestor mate
Yeah I feel like he's completely wearing the nostalgia glasses. Marauders were always a badly designed unit, reapers were completely useless after a while, roaches were either amassed or simply not built, vikings were there to counter specifically one unit etc.
That being said, I completely agree with avilo, and that says something. Patching needs to happen more frequently, more "harshly", and should be part of the game. The times where people can have fun with the same build of a game for 10 years are over, games need to live & breathe.
In that spirit though, WoL was far more than those last 8 months without a patch.
On April 10 2016 21:04 JackONeill wrote: Heum. If CS:GO wasn't designed to be an esport, then Henri the 8th was a model husband.
Problem with LOTV is that not only is it poorly designed as a whole. Just look at what WOL brung to the table compared to BW : - reaper : very simple design. A fast scout unit that can jump cliff but is long to produce and gaz heavy. - viking : very simple design. A long range air superiority fighter, that's fragile but can land. - marauder : very simple design. An addition that synergise very well with the marine and can slow passively. - phoenix : very simple design. Fast air superiority fighter with a very simple and limited harass ability - roach : very simple design. Bulky massable cheap unit with low dps
etc etc. Those were units that were fine because they had interesting behavior, and didn't rely on gimmicky abilities to be efficient. Even the phenix, without the beam is an interesting unit ! Now look at units like the disruptor : it's only usefull when you use its ability. Look at the ravager, only usefull when you spamm its ability. Look at the cyclone,that a complete waste of money if you don't abuse its ability.
WOL was about units that add an interesting behavior and interaction with other units, AND MAYBE had some kind of active ability that could increase their potential. In LOTV, you're forced into using the ability for the unit to be worth it. And maybe that's why, even after only 5 months, the game is already so stale.
Ahhhh nostalgia... WOL was about broodlords, infestor mate
Yeah I feel like he's completely wearing the nostalgia glasses. Marauders were always a badly designed unit, reapers were completely useless after a while, roaches were either amassed or simply not built, vikings were there to counter specifically one unit etc.
That being said, I completely agree with avilo, and that says something. Patching needs to happen more frequently, more "harshly", and should be part of the game. The times where people can have fun with the same build of a game for 10 years are over, games need to live & breathe.
In that spirit though, WoL was far more than those last 8 months without a patch.
That is true, but they stopped doing that relitively quick and let the Broodlord/Infestor era happen.
As a Protoss player, I really don't like removing overlord drop from Zerg's arsenal. Early game is fun and dynamic, and this change will make it more stale.
Ovie drop should stay, it's a good piece to the puzzle. It's attractive to the balance team because of its matchup balance specificity, but I feel that you should be working toward getting Ovie drops back into ZvZ and TvZ not reducing it in the one matchup it's fine in. The biggest issue is just that Protoss doesn't have enough "stuff" in the beginning of the game to adequately deal with the pressure and I think the most obvious target is the overnerfed Chrono. It's not really a unit interaction issue per se, just a huge production disparity especially when you involve those Larva-less Queens and both Banes and Ravagers cost no additional production capacity. I see a production problem, so I think a production buff (i.e. Chrono) is in order. You could be even more selective and buff specific production times per unit, but I favor Chrono for the added research speed buff and added expanding capacity too.
Buffs to Protoss may make PvT worse, so consider some T buff that helps early-mid TvP outside of MMMV, it's more balance work, but I feel worth it to continue to grow the strategic ecosystem.
When i see P whining about zerg drop when they have phoenix out, it's just make me laugh. If you don't patrol with your phoenix, but prefer lift zerg worker, it's your fault if a drop enter in your base.
Even with no stuff, You only have to pull probes, and they are faster than the speed overlord lol.
Harassing as P/T become easier and easier with WOL/HOTS/LOTV, with a toons noobfriendly patchs, but Z can a little harass ? Oh no T/P will have to learn to defend, rather nerf it to death and add superfast banshee to help T (for what ? get 100% win on TvZ ?).
You have GOT TO BE KKIDDING ME with the banshee change. As if the game wasnt frustrating enough for zerg. Are you flippin kiddin me? Seriously.
As a zerg player (yea lower leagues but still), I see a single positive outcome out of this decision: my fists will improve in strength as I will be hitting things so much more often. Blizzard wants to actually improve the boxing scene
When i see P whining about zerg drop when they have phoenix out, it's just make me laugh. If you don't patrol with your phoenix, but prefer lift zerg worker, it's your fault if a drop enter in your base.
Even with no stuff, You only have to pull probes, and they are faster than the speed overlord lol.
Harassing as P/T become easier and easier with WOL/HOTS/LOTV, with a toons noobfriendly patchs, but Z can a little harass ? Oh no T/P will have to learn to defend, rather nerf it to death and add superfast banshee to help T (for what ? get 100% win on TvZ ?).
zerg harass is not nerfed. In mid-lategame overlord drops are as strong as before. only the early game ALL-INS with drops get nerfed.
also you got super-regenerating mutas, cracklings that kill everything and nydus worms that can't be denied so don't pretend like ony P/T harassment got buffed.
When i see P whining about zerg drop when they have phoenix out, it's just make me laugh. If you don't patrol with your phoenix, but prefer lift zerg worker, it's your fault if a drop enter in your base.
Even with no stuff, You only have to pull probes, and they are faster than the speed overlord lol.
Harassing as P/T become easier and easier with WOL/HOTS/LOTV, with a toons noobfriendly patchs, but Z can a little harass ? Oh no T/P will have to learn to defend, rather nerf it to death and add superfast banshee to help T (for what ? get 100% win on TvZ ?).
zerg harass is not nerfed. In mid-lategame overlord drops are as strong as before. only the early game ALL-INS with drops get nerfed.
also you got super-regenerating mutas, cracklings that kill everything and nydus worms that can't be denied so don't pretend like ony P/T harassment got buffed.
Mate, Mid-Late game Harass as Zerg doesn't exist. The moment you start using overlords to drop in mid-late game you don't only lose the army that you dropped you also lose flying supply depots and supply block yourself, since there are always air units out. It's only mutalisks, and those are hard countered by liberators and phoenix, both are currently seen in every single pvz/tvz.
As for nydus, the nydus itself and the units inside the nydus are a huge investment. The Warp prism and the speed medivac almost always escape. (because of their insane speed)
Adept harass. Warp prism harass. Dt's right clicking spores. Oracle harass. Constant phoenix Harass. Banshee harass. Hellion harass. Liberator behind mineral harass. Boosted medivac drop harass. Etc etc. it does not compare.
Zerg is by far the most frustating race to play because of all the things you gotta deal with - and now once again David Kim wants zergs to cringe because appearently speed banshees need to be easily accesible. FFs - there isnt a single zerg unit that is as fast as the speed banshee. Lol.
To say that zerg options for harass are in anyway compareable to the other races is laughable.
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).
there were a motherfucktonne of giant design mistakes during the dawn of the genre. the genre grew in the face of all those bad mistakes because watching 100 units kill each other simultaneously on screen was such a buzz. that's over now... i can watch that on my smart phone.
and if your claim is the genre grew because of great design.. well C&C1 and Warcraft1 are still out there. Great design makes for a timeless classic. Go play them.
You're not even making a point. I can watch your post on my smartphone. lol.
You claim the RTS genre is toast. Go play a moba on your smartphone.
When i see P whining about zerg drop when they have phoenix out, it's just make me laugh. If you don't patrol with your phoenix, but prefer lift zerg worker, it's your fault if a drop enter in your base.
Even with no stuff, You only have to pull probes, and they are faster than the speed overlord lol.
Harassing as P/T become easier and easier with WOL/HOTS/LOTV, with a toons noobfriendly patchs, but Z can a little harass ? Oh no T/P will have to learn to defend, rather nerf it to death and add superfast banshee to help T (for what ? get 100% win on TvZ ?).
zerg harass is not nerfed. In mid-lategame overlord drops are as strong as before. only the early game ALL-INS with drops get nerfed.
also you got super-regenerating mutas, cracklings that kill everything and nydus worms that can't be denied so don't pretend like ony P/T harassment got buffed.
Mate, Mid-Late game Harass as Zerg doesn't exist. The moment you start using overlords to drop in mid-late game you don't only lose the army that you dropped you also lose flying supply depots and supply block yourself, since there are always air units out. It's only mutalisks, and those are hard countered by liberators and phoenix, both are currently seen in every single pvz/tvz.
As for nydus, the nydus itself and the units inside the nydus are a huge investment. The Warp prism and the speed medivac almost always escape. (because of their insane speed)
Adept harass. Warp prism harass. Dt's right clicking spores. Oracle harass. Constant phoenix Harass. Banshee harass. Hellion harass. Liberator behind mineral harass. Boosted medivac drop harass. Etc etc. it does not compare.
Zerg is by far the most frustating race to play because of all the things you gotta deal with - and now once again David Kim wants zergs to cringe because appearently speed banshees need to be easily accesible. FFs - there isnt a single zerg unit that is as fast as the speed banshee. Lol.
To say that zerg options for harass are in anyway compareable to the other races is laughable.
That's actually a good thing for zerg. Way I see it, they are a well-designed race that doesn't rely on gimmicks to win. Meanwhile, T and P have to rely on cheap tricks and stupid gimmicks to win xvZ. I'd love to see all those gimmicks removed and replaced with actual strategies.
When i see P whining about zerg drop when they have phoenix out, it's just make me laugh. If you don't patrol with your phoenix, but prefer lift zerg worker, it's your fault if a drop enter in your base.
Even with no stuff, You only have to pull probes, and they are faster than the speed overlord lol.
Harassing as P/T become easier and easier with WOL/HOTS/LOTV, with a toons noobfriendly patchs, but Z can a little harass ? Oh no T/P will have to learn to defend, rather nerf it to death and add superfast banshee to help T (for what ? get 100% win on TvZ ?).
zerg harass is not nerfed. In mid-lategame overlord drops are as strong as before. only the early game ALL-INS with drops get nerfed.
also you got super-regenerating mutas, cracklings that kill everything and nydus worms that can't be denied so don't pretend like ony P/T harassment got buffed.
Mate, Mid-Late game Harass as Zerg doesn't exist. The moment you start using overlords to drop in mid-late game you don't only lose the army that you dropped you also lose flying supply depots and supply block yourself, since there are always air units out. It's only mutalisks, and those are hard countered by liberators and phoenix, both are currently seen in every single pvz/tvz.
As for nydus, the nydus itself and the units inside the nydus are a huge investment. The Warp prism and the speed medivac almost always escape. (because of their insane speed)
Adept harass. Warp prism harass. Dt's right clicking spores. Oracle harass. Constant phoenix Harass. Banshee harass. Hellion harass. Liberator behind mineral harass. Boosted medivac drop harass. Etc etc. it does not compare.
Zerg is by far the most frustating race to play because of all the things you gotta deal with - and now once again David Kim wants zergs to cringe because appearently speed banshees need to be easily accesible. FFs - there isnt a single zerg unit that is as fast as the speed banshee. Lol.
To say that zerg options for harass are in anyway compareable to the other races is laughable.
That's actually a good thing for zerg. Way I see it, they are a well-designed race that doesn't rely on gimmicks to win. Meanwhile, T and P have to rely on cheap tricks and stupid gimmicks to win xvZ. I'd love to see all those gimmicks removed and replaced with actual strategies.
lol please.. even if none of this harass is succesfull..the game is not over by any means. solid macro and immortals do the trick just fine ;p
these are just scenarios that put stress on zerg and can end games instantly.
When i see P whining about zerg drop when they have phoenix out, it's just make me laugh. If you don't patrol with your phoenix, but prefer lift zerg worker, it's your fault if a drop enter in your base.
Even with no stuff, You only have to pull probes, and they are faster than the speed overlord lol.
Harassing as P/T become easier and easier with WOL/HOTS/LOTV, with a toons noobfriendly patchs, but Z can a little harass ? Oh no T/P will have to learn to defend, rather nerf it to death and add superfast banshee to help T (for what ? get 100% win on TvZ ?).
zerg harass is not nerfed. In mid-lategame overlord drops are as strong as before. only the early game ALL-INS with drops get nerfed.
also you got super-regenerating mutas, cracklings that kill everything and nydus worms that can't be denied so don't pretend like ony P/T harassment got buffed.
Mate, Mid-Late game Harass as Zerg doesn't exist. The moment you start using overlords to drop in mid-late game you don't only lose the army that you dropped you also lose flying supply depots and supply block yourself, since there are always air units out. It's only mutalisks, and those are hard countered by liberators and phoenix, both are currently seen in every single pvz/tvz.
As for nydus, the nydus itself and the units inside the nydus are a huge investment. The Warp prism and the speed medivac almost always escape. (because of their insane speed)
Adept harass. Warp prism harass. Dt's right clicking spores. Oracle harass. Constant phoenix Harass. Banshee harass. Hellion harass. Liberator behind mineral harass. Boosted medivac drop harass. Etc etc. it does not compare.
Zerg is by far the most frustating race to play because of all the things you gotta deal with - and now once again David Kim wants zergs to cringe because appearently speed banshees need to be easily accesible. FFs - there isnt a single zerg unit that is as fast as the speed banshee. Lol.
To say that zerg options for harass are in anyway compareable to the other races is laughable.
That's actually a good thing for zerg. Way I see it, they are a well-designed race that doesn't rely on gimmicks to win. Meanwhile, T and P have to rely on cheap tricks and stupid gimmicks to win xvZ. I'd love to see all those gimmicks removed and replaced with actual strategies.
lol please.. even if none of this harass is succesfull..the game is not over by any means. solid macro and immortals do the trick just fine ;p
these are just scenarios that put stress on zerg and can end games instantly.
Are you implying that a terran or protoss player can just play a macro game vs zerg without harassing at all? Because that never ends well for the t or p player.
I dont have much to add but since blizzard likes to see peoples opinion about stuff.
Really dislike the banshee direction. For me, i have always disliked the banshee, the interactions it brings to the table just comes off very short. Either you have the right amount to defend or you dont. It has so little to do with movement of the players.
On top of that, its a very easy unit to "abuse", get a critical mass and be very effective while for the opponent it becomes really boring. For the spectator, if i were the spectator in this case, it wouldnt be excited or fun since it just feels lame to me.
On April 11 2016 09:47 Foxxan wrote: I dont have much to add but since blizzard likes to see peoples opinion about stuff.
Really dislike the banshee direction. For me, i have always disliked the banshee, the interactions it brings to the table just comes off very short. Either you have the right amount to defend or you dont. It has so little to do with movement of the players.
On top of that, its a very easy unit to "abuse", get a critical mass and be very effective while for the opponent it becomes really boring. For the spectator, if i were the spectator in this case, it wouldnt be excited or fun since it just feels lame to me.
Yeah, critical mass banshees are definitely plaugeing Proleague/GSL/SSL. Really wish Blizzard would nerf this blatantly broken unit!!
On April 11 2016 09:47 Foxxan wrote: I dont have much to add but since blizzard likes to see peoples opinion about stuff.
Really dislike the banshee direction. For me, i have always disliked the banshee, the interactions it brings to the table just comes off very short. Either you have the right amount to defend or you dont. It has so little to do with movement of the players.
On top of that, its a very easy unit to "abuse", get a critical mass and be very effective while for the opponent it becomes really boring. For the spectator, if i were the spectator in this case, it wouldnt be excited or fun since it just feels lame to me.
Yeah, critical mass banshees are definitely plaugeing Proleague/GSL/SSL. Really wish Blizzard would nerf this blatantly broken unit!!
Another 100% crap comment. I do have experience with critical mass air, and so do many other starcraft players.
When i see P whining about zerg drop when they have phoenix out, it's just make me laugh. If you don't patrol with your phoenix, but prefer lift zerg worker, it's your fault if a drop enter in your base.
Even with no stuff, You only have to pull probes, and they are faster than the speed overlord lol.
Harassing as P/T become easier and easier with WOL/HOTS/LOTV, with a toons noobfriendly patchs, but Z can a little harass ? Oh no T/P will have to learn to defend, rather nerf it to death and add superfast banshee to help T (for what ? get 100% win on TvZ ?).
zerg harass is not nerfed. In mid-lategame overlord drops are as strong as before. only the early game ALL-INS with drops get nerfed.
also you got super-regenerating mutas, cracklings that kill everything and nydus worms that can't be denied so don't pretend like ony P/T harassment got buffed.
Overlord drop are not strong at all.
Overlord drop : 0.82, 2.62 with speed. Warprism drop : 4.13, 5.36 with upgrade. Medivac drop : 3.5, 5.94 with boost.
And it's overlord drop that will be nerfed !
Mutas regenrating rate : 1,4 per seconds, shield regeneration of ALL Protoss units : 2,8 per seconds, just two times more than mutalisk, medivac heal rate : 12.6 per seconds, just 9 times better than mutalisk.
But all we hear is "Mutas are OP with super regeneration", while we barely see mutas ouside ZvZ due to the addition to liberator, and +1 range for phoenix.
Nyndus worm is just a all-in thing, imagine P/T will drop and Z knows 14s in advance where they will drop, and P/T can't cancel their drop, or drop another location. Will be a Powerful harass tool lol ?
I fully agree, zerg harass is still probably the absolute worst in the game. By the time you drop all the lings in the base they kill maybe 3 scv/drones before they pull off the line and warp in 2 zealots or 2 adepts that kill all the lings. Drones alone can kill the damn lings too! The investment in lave is also huge becuase you cannot drone while doing this while all the other races CAN STILL DRONE while harassing. Worse yet, if you forget a inject your boned, while Terran just says Oh well I'll just drop 100000 mules and make 300000 minerals a second Oh well!
When i see P whining about zerg drop when they have phoenix out, it's just make me laugh. If you don't patrol with your phoenix, but prefer lift zerg worker, it's your fault if a drop enter in your base.
Even with no stuff, You only have to pull probes, and they are faster than the speed overlord lol.
Harassing as P/T become easier and easier with WOL/HOTS/LOTV, with a toons noobfriendly patchs, but Z can a little harass ? Oh no T/P will have to learn to defend, rather nerf it to death and add superfast banshee to help T (for what ? get 100% win on TvZ ?).
zerg harass is not nerfed. In mid-lategame overlord drops are as strong as before. only the early game ALL-INS with drops get nerfed.
also you got super-regenerating mutas, cracklings that kill everything and nydus worms that can't be denied so don't pretend like ony P/T harassment got buffed.
Overlord drop are not strong at all.
Overlord drop : 0.82, 2.62 with speed. Warprism drop : 4.13, 5.36 with upgrade. Medivac drop : 3.5, 5.94 with boost.
And it's overlord drop that will be nerfed !
Mutas regenrating rate : 1,4 per seconds, shield regeneration of ALL Protoss units : 2,8 per seconds, just two times more than mutalisk, medivac heal rate : 12.6 per seconds, just 9 times better than mutalisk.
But all we hear is "Mutas are OP with super regeneration", while we barely see mutas ouside ZvZ due to the addition to liberator, and +1 range for phoenix.
Nyndus worm is just a all-in thing, imagine P/T will drop and Z knows 14s in advance where they will drop, and P/T can't cancel their drop, or drop another location. Will be a Powerful harass tool lol ?
Overlords are also 100/0/0 flying units that give you 8 supply. That alone more than justifies their costs, no reason to even give them any drop capability at all, though the individual upgrades are quite an elegant solution since you can completely store the costefficiency of the drops into that upgrade.
Which I agree, the efficiency of them is very bad to begin with (but they are also dirt cheap). I think it would be fair if they upped the costs and the speed of drop-overlords when making it lair. At the moment it is an early game gimmick with bits of mid/lategame applications. Though then again, I don't want to be fighting for even more worker-genocide in this game and the other way around - nerfs to medivac and prism - would be much more reasonable than making zerg drops better throughout the game.
As a Protoss player, I don't think Overlord drops are the problem, at all with the matchup. Overlord drops are an annoyance and a minor form of harrassment (unless of course people are doing a Speedling all-in, but that isn't overpowered either).
It would be like buffing Protoss with better wall offs to stop Speedling run-bys to help the matchup... it won't solve the fundamental issues Protoss has in the later stages of the game that have little to do with early game shenanigans. It would just make a form of harrassment for Zerg harder.
So Tank and Thor anti air changes are dropped in favor of a banshee change no one asked for? I wonder why there is so much negativity towards the balance team? hmm
Seriously though, it's like i said a number of times. It doesn't matter what the community talks about or wants, David Kim is going to do what he wants regardless. There is a complete disconnect between the player base and the devs and this is the reason SC2 is struggling.
On April 09 2016 06:11 Shuffleblade wrote: 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
The bold part is exactly what i think they are doing. The "strong" space control units of terran are being kept at a poor level, Siege Tanks, or are getting nerfed, Libs, and the harass options like Medivacs and Banshees are getting buffed. Poor army and strong harass is how i think DK wants Terran to play. It morphed in to a star ship troopers race rather then Starcraft Terran.
When i see P whining about zerg drop when they have phoenix out, it's just make me laugh. If you don't patrol with your phoenix, but prefer lift zerg worker, it's your fault if a drop enter in your base.
Even with no stuff, You only have to pull probes, and they are faster than the speed overlord lol.
Harassing as P/T become easier and easier with WOL/HOTS/LOTV, with a toons noobfriendly patchs, but Z can a little harass ? Oh no T/P will have to learn to defend, rather nerf it to death and add superfast banshee to help T (for what ? get 100% win on TvZ ?).
zerg harass is not nerfed. In mid-lategame overlord drops are as strong as before. only the early game ALL-INS with drops get nerfed.
also you got super-regenerating mutas, cracklings that kill everything and nydus worms that can't be denied so don't pretend like ony P/T harassment got buffed.
Overlord drop are not strong at all.
Overlord drop : 0.82, 2.62 with speed. Warprism drop : 4.13, 5.36 with upgrade. Medivac drop : 3.5, 5.94 with boost.
And it's overlord drop that will be nerfed !
Mutas regenrating rate : 1,4 per seconds, shield regeneration of ALL Protoss units : 2,8 per seconds, just two times more than mutalisk, medivac heal rate : 12.6 per seconds, just 9 times better than mutalisk.
But all we hear is "Mutas are OP with super regeneration", while we barely see mutas ouside ZvZ due to the addition to liberator, and +1 range for phoenix.
Nyndus worm is just a all-in thing, imagine P/T will drop and Z knows 14s in advance where they will drop, and P/T can't cancel their drop, or drop another location. Will be a Powerful harass tool lol ?
The problem of Ovie drops isn't about speed. But because of "creative" maps! When you spawn close by air then queen, the slowest unit in the game, can be dropped in your base. The same queen, that was designed to repel all early game units! Which means that you just move super good defensive unit into the base of your enemy who doesn't have any good units to kill it. Because if the enemy would have such units, then if you are not doing such drops you are fucked as Z.
This is the problem with ovie drops. Shut down close by air positions and everything is cool without any nerfing. Then Zerg can do only ling drops, but lings are kinda killable compared to queens.
Also all your other claims - you play Zerg, right? Have you missed the amount of patches to Protoss so mutas are not insta win? Imagine removing the range from phoenix with the recent nerfs Protoss received... After the regen added the ONLY counter to mutas are phoenixes. In HotS you could go mass stalkers/sentry(because reasons) and that was a soft counter because Zerg couldn't transition into mutas(they didn't have the gas, their army would be weaker and stalkers are better at base trading), but if you went anything else and you haven't scouted the spire in time you probably just lost the game, because mutas were really strong in PvZ...
BTW in WoL you could defend muta play with templars and it actually worked quite well. because no regen storm mattered more.
Yeah definitely don't remove overlord drops, it's a nice change to see Zergs finally drop.
Did you know that every cocoon/egg has 2 armour, while Lurker egg has 1 and for whatever reason the Ravager egg has 5 armour? Increasing the consistency of the game and giving these two units 2 armour eggs, would actually really help the protoss Phoenix opener, since Phoenix do no damage to Ravager eggs currently.
Other significant changes would involve removing Corrosive Bile damage on structures or increasing the Ravager morph time. Overcharge +1 range would be another change that would really bring Protoss back in full force, since it heavily nerfs Queen/Ravager timings, while also nerfing the Liberator, this could mean we don't have to go through with the radius nerf.
The +damage vs light on Liberator (Nerf to anything not Light) Anti Air attack could be interesting, this would allow for the change to the Thor where it deals flat damage across the board (AoE) to exist, since they no longer overlap. Though scaling up the damage of the Thor to that of it's current +vs light damage, would probably be a little too strong (As seen on the Balance Test Map.)
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0TCMITU.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qARDLEy.jpg)
