|
The game is relatively fine at the moment on a balance spectrum. I'm not too butt hurt about David really trying to let the metgame settle. Back in BW it was the players and the maps that balanced the game first, then the patch came.
Dark especially showing new styles vs Protoss that may be viable, but I see an Immortal nerf on the horizon once Protoss learns to expect baneling drop based play. Late game Skytoss is also totally absurd and cancer, Templar/Archon/Tempest/Immortal is a modern day BroodLord/Infestor.
I really hate the dynamics going on in ZvT right now though, the Liberator wtf pwning everything in the sky and the Ultralisk wtf pwning everything on the ground sucks really bad, especially in the best match up in the game. The entire match up is centered around Liberators doing as much damage as possible and the Zerg absorbing the damage until Ultralisks come out, and if the Terran didn't perfectly transition to a heavy Marauder/Liberator/Ghost composition it's extremely difficult to fight the Ultralisks. The HOTS metagame where big fights over the Zerg's 4th base with Mutalisks flying around and drops darting in was much better to watch/play.
Infestor still sucks, Ghost still sucks, Ravens still suck, Swarm Hosts, Cyclones and Colossus still need to be buffed/changed/removed from the game, Nydus is still hilariously abusive, Ravagers are still wonderful for frustrating to deal with all ins but terrible in straight up engagements. Maps are also of poor quality, Prion Terrance? Ulrena? Ruins of Cheesion? Never underestimate the power that maps have on game balance.
I don't know, I'm not unhappy with the state of the game because it's definitely faster/more spread out but I feel like it's more hard counter centric then it's ever been, balance changes need to be coming in small, fine tuning so to speak.
|
given it is a 3 race diverse race RTS i think LotV comes as close as one can reasonably expect to facilitating the viability of many diverse strats. Blizzard is doing exactly what they should do and letting the game evolve as players learn more.
Yet heart of the swarm was way better in terms of strategic diversity. Blizzard added more options, but the options added are either ridiculously OP or useless.
Cyclone still has NO role in any MU, a unit that is completely worthless, seems like a problem to me.
I have not seen anybody use reaper grenades in any effective way other than for an allin... so a unit made specifically for allins that is so powerful at it that it strongly forces allins and high reaper count builds.
Liberators, which completely hard counter something like mutas and make them almost completely nonviable in ZvT... a unit that was viable before with skillful control is now worthless, on top of this liberators also are the only answer terran has to new things like immortal based armies (new shield) and ultras, and in general the best thing terran has for the lategame and are therefore massed in a majority of games.
Immortal shield has made it so that immortals can't be EMP'd nowhere near as effectively and are the firepower unit of choice for an overwhelming majority of protoss armies. On top of that the shield is autocast so it takes no skill whatsoever to use.
Protoss now has access to 4 pylon overcharges in selected locations which discourages harass, as well as makes pylons a possible cheese strategy (did protoss really need more cheese?)
I could go on, but I feel like the point is evident... there's so many things that either make the game unfun (perhaps only for me although I see many similar opinions) or just don't make any sense from a design perspective. All these units that blizzard made so powerful are now the "forced meta". Not something people come up with because they find really cool, strategic ways to use units over time, but because the current units they have are just good units.
EDIT: My main point is that instead of fixing things that are clearly bad for the game, reversing changes that are bad, blizzard decides to balance the game around the bad design... sure after a while the players will find a way to fight the bad design, but will it be fun? People found a way to fight swarm hosts with mass ravens or mass tempests HT, people were still playing terran during broodlord infestor era. That doesn't make it the right thing to do, because if instead during this time players were adapting to a well designed game rather than a poorly designed one, the games and strategies would be far more interesting.
|
It's cool that they clarified their idea about prioritizing small changes over big changes, it's just also so obviously wrong
|
We also saw an interesting suggestion this week: The theory on this suggestion was that PvZ is only problematic for Protoss only at lower skill levels.
If this is true, we could target the difficulty of usage of Disruptors by giving a bit more strength to Colossi to make it a more attractive, less micro-intensive option. This seemed like a great suggestion.
You know the same can be said with MM or "bio" play being the only truly viable unit composition for Terran. It is only an issue at lower skill levels. However, you have done very little over several years, even after stating that you would try to improve the game in this area, to adjust other irrelevant compositions (cylclone, thor, BC, hellbats, etc.) to make them a more attractive, less micro-intensive option. At least, nothing significant that is causing any players to actually utilize any of your changes and opt out of bio (even at lower skill levels).
By not following up on your stated action plan and vision for the game, with clear progress updates, you are losing reputation with the community. Even stating that you are lacking resources and have had to put certain improvements on hold would be a better response than simply going silent for months/years and failing to implement what you stated that you would try to correct with the game. We will not believe that changes to the Cyclone, or the BC, will cause negative issues for GSL pro-level players. You improve the game for lower skill level players, and I assure you, no GSL champion is going to rely on any buffed BC if you do your job right.
|
Besides that the cyclone has no purpose, the HERC got removed (lets ignore the Warhound), a lot got nerfed (with no good reason f.e. thor secundairy fire mode etc.) and we end up with just a redonkulous liberator. While the other races recieved a huge amount of (fun) tools, buffed without a comprise (nydus/ultralisk etc) we are stuck with just bio.
Make pylons just fire at units, not buildings, just like the liberator. We cant see a burrowed lurker, but there is a clear mark for a mine. So many weird choices...
|
I love how Zergs are all complaining about Immortals and Protoss late game, ignoring that PvZ is at 45% since LotV release. If anything Protoss should get buffed across the board.
Edit:
Across the board meaning this:
- reduction of WG research by 15 seconds, so that P can maybe do some early game pressure, like it was able to do in WoL and HotS and not just have to absorb damage all game long
- buff Stalker AA damage to 14 flat
- reduce Charge, Blink and Storm research time by 10-15%
Then maybe we can talk about Immortals.
|
Czech Republic12133 Posts
On April 20 2016 22:09 CheddarToss wrote:
I love how Zergs are all complaining about Immortals and Protoss late game, ignoring that PvZ is at 45% since LotV release. If anything Protoss should get buffed across the board.
Edit:
Across the board meaning this:
- reduction of WG research by 15 seconds, so that P can maybe do some early game pressure, like it was able to do in WoL and HotS and not just have to absorb damage all game long
- buff Stalker AA damage to 14 flat
- reduce Charge, Blink and Storm research time by 10-15%
Then maybe we can talk about Immortals.
Also it is nice to say "Korean Protoss, Korean PvZ" when Korean games are on TOTALLY different map pool. They cannot balance a game around Korea when Korea bans the most idiotic maps out there.
|
I count 22 "Community updates" issued since LOTV launched five months ago. It is no surprise that so many are disappointed when you read through the following Blizzard comments and realize that nothing has changed with Mech play, at all:
"We agree with you that Siege Tanks gaining mobility did take away from what the unit is by design"
"The next step for Terran mech - We believe we can push mech usage more as well."
"We are looking at ways to get a little more mech play in Terran matchups. Our first attempt at this will be to buff one of the more underused units."
"Another popular area you guys bring up these days and that we agree with is making mech more viable. We will continue testing the mech upgrade changes, or other changes if needed, in order to really figure out what the best direction for mech is"
"After going through the feedback, our current thought is to focus more on individual mech units first, and diversifying that."
"Currently in the game, Terran bio-play can have the fire power of Siege Tanks without sacrificing mobility. This seems to be a main reason to play bio instead of mech"
"The main differences from Korea was a bigger focus on potentially bringing mech play back into TvT"
"If you had thoughts on either of these points or have other reasons as to what the root issue with Mech may be, please let us know. Once we find the root cause, we can start discussing potential solutions in this area."
"With the new units and new unit changes coming into the game, we do agree with you guys that the Thor could use a pass."
Facts are the best argument and support as to why there are major issues with the multiplayer aspect of SC2 right now.
|
On April 20 2016 22:37 PressureSC2 wrote:
I count 22 "Community updates" issued since LOTV launched five months ago. It is no surprise that so many are disappointed when you read through the following Blizzard comments and realize that nothing has changed with Mech play, at all:
"We agree with you that Siege Tanks gaining mobility did take away from what the unit is by design"
"The next step for Terran mech - We believe we can push mech usage more as well."
"We are looking at ways to get a little more mech play in Terran matchups. Our first attempt at this will be to buff one of the more underused units."
"Another popular area you guys bring up these days and that we agree with is making mech more viable. We will continue testing the mech upgrade changes, or other changes if needed, in order to really figure out what the best direction for mech is"
"After going through the feedback, our current thought is to focus more on individual mech units first, and diversifying that."
"Currently in the game, Terran bio-play can have the fire power of Siege Tanks without sacrificing mobility. This seems to be a main reason to play bio instead of mech"
"The main differences from Korea was a bigger focus on potentially bringing mech play back into TvT"
"If you had thoughts on either of these points or have other reasons as to what the root issue with Mech may be, please let us know. Once we find the root cause, we can start discussing potential solutions in this area."
"With the new units and new unit changes coming into the game, we do agree with you guys that the Thor could use a pass."
Facts are the best argument and support as to why there are major issues with the multiplayer aspect of SC2 right now.
:D great summary!
|
United Kingdom20344 Posts
Across the board meaning this:
- reduction of WG research by 15 seconds, so that P can maybe do some early game pressure, like it was able to do in WoL and HotS and not just have to absorb damage all game long
I think that WG is even more important for defense. I can't count the number of games i've had or seen where there is some attack or all-in hitting and warpgate research is ticking away at the side, 10 seconds from completion.
|
On April 20 2016 22:37 PressureSC2 wrote:
I count 22 "Community updates" issued since LOTV launched five months ago. It is no surprise that so many are disappointed when you read through the following Blizzard comments and realize that nothing has changed with Mech play, at all:
"We agree with you that Siege Tanks gaining mobility did take away from what the unit is by design"
"The next step for Terran mech - We believe we can push mech usage more as well."
"We are looking at ways to get a little more mech play in Terran matchups. Our first attempt at this will be to buff one of the more underused units."
"Another popular area you guys bring up these days and that we agree with is making mech more viable. We will continue testing the mech upgrade changes, or other changes if needed, in order to really figure out what the best direction for mech is"
"After going through the feedback, our current thought is to focus more on individual mech units first, and diversifying that."
"Currently in the game, Terran bio-play can have the fire power of Siege Tanks without sacrificing mobility. This seems to be a main reason to play bio instead of mech"
"The main differences from Korea was a bigger focus on potentially bringing mech play back into TvT"
"If you had thoughts on either of these points or have other reasons as to what the root issue with Mech may be, please let us know. Once we find the root cause, we can start discussing potential solutions in this area."
"With the new units and new unit changes coming into the game, we do agree with you guys that the Thor could use a pass."
Facts are the best argument and support as to why there are major issues with the multiplayer aspect of SC2 right now.
Im lost for words...
"Words are not enough, actions speaks louder" really has not been Blizzards melody
|
On April 18 2016 06:16 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 04:15 Nazara wrote:On April 17 2016 23:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:On April 17 2016 22:56 Hider wrote:You miss the point too. Lets say the game was balanced for gold. How would the game look like? and how would it look like at pro level? The game can be balanced across all races while maintaing a very high skillcap as long as the skillcap and skillfloorfor all 3 races is similar. The issue right now is that Zerg is the easiest race and protoss seems to be the hardest. This is why changes such as +2 armor to Ultralisks were so atrocious because they just buffed the core stats of the biggest amove unit. Zerg need worse core stats and more stuff that rewards micro. That's an assumption, nothing more. edit: to be more clear, both your statement about the relative difficulty (what difficulty are we talking about here? Overall? Army control? Macro? Knowledge?) AND that it is even possible to have three unique races with three similar skill floors and skill ceilings at any stage of the game I doubt it is btw first statement is very true. Protoss doing alright at the top means that game is not very imbalanced there. However the distribution of Protoss and Zerg players across the leagues and especially at lower leagues points at the relative difficulty of races being a problem, not balance. i don't think race distribution has anything to do with difficulty to play. A player with platin skill level will always be in platinum regardless of balance or difficulty to play. i think it has more to do with how fun a race is to play. If a race isn't very fun to play many players will quit playing and that influences the distribution.
Exactly!
Balance changes distribution, but distribution change doesnt mean imbalance. There are too many reasons why the distribution can change.
I made the same experience as you. Player skill doesnt change with races. My friends used to offrace a lot and they still played like a master. No matter what race they played, ive always lost with my main race (me top dia, they were masters). I am sure race has an impact on skill, but not more than a quarter league.
Also my friends changed their race based on fun. I can imagine that many people started to play zerg because zerg feels complete and has many new tools.
|
On April 20 2016 22:27 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 22:09 CheddarToss wrote:
I love how Zergs are all complaining about Immortals and Protoss late game, ignoring that PvZ is at 45% since LotV release. If anything Protoss should get buffed across the board.
Edit:
Across the board meaning this:
- reduction of WG research by 15 seconds, so that P can maybe do some early game pressure, like it was able to do in WoL and HotS and not just have to absorb damage all game long
- buff Stalker AA damage to 14 flat
- reduce Charge, Blink and Storm research time by 10-15%
Then maybe we can talk about Immortals.
Also it is nice to say "Korean Protoss, Korean PvZ" when Korean games are on TOTALLY different map pool. They cannot balance a game around Korea when Korea bans the most idiotic maps out there.
Do you actually think blizzard missed that point? They have very smart people working for them. They seperated the data. Made one with same maps, one with different maps and one with all maps. From these three datasets they draw their conclusion.
Also are the winrates that different? I dont follow gsl anymore, but we can check if the winrates differ from other maps.
|
United Kingdom20344 Posts
Do you actually think blizzard missed that point?
Honestly, yes. They need the community to help point out stuff like why phoenix openers are so dominant in PvZ, as well. That's not neccesarily a bad thing.
Also are the winrates that different? I dont follow gsl anymore, but we can check if the winrates differ from other maps.
Yes. Maps like this have been on the ladder and in the nonkorean pools for multiple seasons:
Race Stats (non-mirrors):
TvZ: 75-84 (47.2%)
ZvP: 101-46 (68.7%)
PvT: 63-39 (61.8%)
Mirrors: 42 TvT | 158 ZvZ | 43 PvP
ZvZ has been 3.7x more popular than TvT and PvP.
Zerg won 2.2x more often than Protoss in ZvP.
|
On April 21 2016 03:56 todespolka wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 22:27 deacon.frost wrote:On April 20 2016 22:09 CheddarToss wrote:
I love how Zergs are all complaining about Immortals and Protoss late game, ignoring that PvZ is at 45% since LotV release. If anything Protoss should get buffed across the board.
Edit:
Across the board meaning this:
- reduction of WG research by 15 seconds, so that P can maybe do some early game pressure, like it was able to do in WoL and HotS and not just have to absorb damage all game long
- buff Stalker AA damage to 14 flat
- reduce Charge, Blink and Storm research time by 10-15%
Then maybe we can talk about Immortals.
Also it is nice to say "Korean Protoss, Korean PvZ" when Korean games are on TOTALLY different map pool. They cannot balance a game around Korea when Korea bans the most idiotic maps out there. Do you actually think blizzard missed that point? They have very smart people working for them. They seperated the data. Made one with same maps, one with different maps and one with all maps. From these three datasets they draw their conclusion. Also are the winrates that different? I dont follow gsl anymore, but we can check if the winrates differ from other maps.
I wouldn't be too sure about that when you consider the quality of the maps Blizzard forces upon the ladder and thus the majority of tournaments and players..
|
On April 20 2016 22:37 PressureSC2 wrote:
I count 22 "Community updates" issued since LOTV launched five months ago. It is no surprise that so many are disappointed when you read through the following Blizzard comments and realize that nothing has changed with Mech play, at all:
"We agree with you that Siege Tanks gaining mobility did take away from what the unit is by design"
"The next step for Terran mech - We believe we can push mech usage more as well."
"We are looking at ways to get a little more mech play in Terran matchups. Our first attempt at this will be to buff one of the more underused units."
"Another popular area you guys bring up these days and that we agree with is making mech more viable. We will continue testing the mech upgrade changes, or other changes if needed, in order to really figure out what the best direction for mech is"
"After going through the feedback, our current thought is to focus more on individual mech units first, and diversifying that."
"Currently in the game, Terran bio-play can have the fire power of Siege Tanks without sacrificing mobility. This seems to be a main reason to play bio instead of mech"
"The main differences from Korea was a bigger focus on potentially bringing mech play back into TvT"
"If you had thoughts on either of these points or have other reasons as to what the root issue with Mech may be, please let us know. Once we find the root cause, we can start discussing potential solutions in this area."
"With the new units and new unit changes coming into the game, we do agree with you guys that the Thor could use a pass."
Facts are the best argument and support as to why there are major issues with the multiplayer aspect of SC2 right now.
This is exactly why most developers/publishers DON'T provide feedback to the community like this. Game design is slow and painful. A LOT of factors have to be considered for every direction they take. Now plug in thousands of opinions, all fighting against each other, things are only going to get more complicated- and slow.
|
On April 21 2016 01:55 Glorfindel! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 22:37 PressureSC2 wrote:
I count 22 "Community updates" issued since LOTV launched five months ago. It is no surprise that so many are disappointed when you read through the following Blizzard comments and realize that nothing has changed with Mech play, at all:
"We agree with you that Siege Tanks gaining mobility did take away from what the unit is by design"
"The next step for Terran mech - We believe we can push mech usage more as well."
"We are looking at ways to get a little more mech play in Terran matchups. Our first attempt at this will be to buff one of the more underused units."
"Another popular area you guys bring up these days and that we agree with is making mech more viable. We will continue testing the mech upgrade changes, or other changes if needed, in order to really figure out what the best direction for mech is"
"After going through the feedback, our current thought is to focus more on individual mech units first, and diversifying that."
"Currently in the game, Terran bio-play can have the fire power of Siege Tanks without sacrificing mobility. This seems to be a main reason to play bio instead of mech"
"The main differences from Korea was a bigger focus on potentially bringing mech play back into TvT"
"If you had thoughts on either of these points or have other reasons as to what the root issue with Mech may be, please let us know. Once we find the root cause, we can start discussing potential solutions in this area."
"With the new units and new unit changes coming into the game, we do agree with you guys that the Thor could use a pass."
Facts are the best argument and support as to why there are major issues with the multiplayer aspect of SC2 right now.
Im lost for words... "Words are not enough, actions speaks louder" really has not been Blizzards melody
right, not enough actions from Blizzard LOL.
list all the companies pouring more cash into the RTS scene.
|
On April 21 2016 06:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:55 Glorfindel! wrote:On April 20 2016 22:37 PressureSC2 wrote:
I count 22 "Community updates" issued since LOTV launched five months ago. It is no surprise that so many are disappointed when you read through the following Blizzard comments and realize that nothing has changed with Mech play, at all:
"We agree with you that Siege Tanks gaining mobility did take away from what the unit is by design"
"The next step for Terran mech - We believe we can push mech usage more as well."
"We are looking at ways to get a little more mech play in Terran matchups. Our first attempt at this will be to buff one of the more underused units."
"Another popular area you guys bring up these days and that we agree with is making mech more viable. We will continue testing the mech upgrade changes, or other changes if needed, in order to really figure out what the best direction for mech is"
"After going through the feedback, our current thought is to focus more on individual mech units first, and diversifying that."
"Currently in the game, Terran bio-play can have the fire power of Siege Tanks without sacrificing mobility. This seems to be a main reason to play bio instead of mech"
"The main differences from Korea was a bigger focus on potentially bringing mech play back into TvT"
"If you had thoughts on either of these points or have other reasons as to what the root issue with Mech may be, please let us know. Once we find the root cause, we can start discussing potential solutions in this area."
"With the new units and new unit changes coming into the game, we do agree with you guys that the Thor could use a pass."
Facts are the best argument and support as to why there are major issues with the multiplayer aspect of SC2 right now.
Im lost for words... "Words are not enough, actions speaks louder" really has not been Blizzards melody right, not enough actions from Blizzard LOL. list all the companies pouring more cash into the RTS scene.
Money=Passion
Totally right, a beautiful point.
|
|
|
On April 21 2016 04:04 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +Also are the winrates that different? I dont follow gsl anymore, but we can check if the winrates differ from other maps. Yes. Maps like this have been on the ladder and in the nonkorean pools for multiple seasons: Show nested quote +
Race Stats (non-mirrors):
TvZ: 75-84 (47.2%)
ZvP: 101-46 (68.7%)
PvT: 63-39 (61.8%)
Mirrors: 42 TvT | 158 ZvZ | 43 PvP
ZvZ has been 3.7x more popular than TvT and PvP. Zerg won 2.2x more often than Protoss in ZvP.
Prion is in GSL too, and much like the ladder, you can veto it - and once you do, you have super favourable maps for protoss in pvz, so why complain about one map and only nitpick stats?
I honestly think people need to wake up and look at the code S stats for this season, really look at them. Remember Sniper? The infamous patchzerg that won a code S at the height of BL/Inf patchzergs? For the current Code S, Zerg had WORSE win rates in both zvp and zvt than protoss and terran players had against zergs in the GSL that Sniper won - please just let that sink in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
