|
On April 17 2016 04:15 Tresher wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 00:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 17 2016 00:40 TronJovolta wrote:On April 16 2016 08:51 Beelzebub1 wrote:On April 16 2016 08:47 PinoKotsBeer wrote:On April 16 2016 08:33 armazingerz1 wrote:On April 16 2016 08:14 Charoisaur wrote:On April 16 2016 08:08 armazingerz1 wrote:
The problem with liberators is that's the cheapest, easiest and most effective way to harass in the whole game. They kill some workers very fast, then they stop you from mining for a long time and make you some casualties when trying to kill it. And it's SO easy to produce and use. Nerfing the AA damage won't fix that, I don't think that reducing the reticule would be solution either (because it's hard to deploy them properly while defending), I would go with a range reduction plus a slight rate of fire reduction, so you would lose lesser workers and you would take lesser casualties while killing him. that's one of the misconception non-terran players have. Liberators are far from being little commitment because every liberator is a medivac you didn't make and you have to divide your starport production between medivacs and liberators. Every liberator you lose is huge because if you remake them you probably won't have enough medivacs to sufficiently heal your army and if you don't remake you won't have their zoning potential in your army. That's quite a little commitment if you consider that P and Z players have to build a specific building and air units to deal with it or asume casualties. It's by far the riskless way to harass oh noes! you have to make units to counter stuff. if only lings could fly as well....or wait, a flying ultralisk. so you dont have to build anything else. This is a dumb response to a valid point . Not saying Liberators are imbalanced means you play Terran and you like Liberators being imbalanced. Just like Zergs like to think that Zerg end game isn't OP vs. Terran with the Ultralisk. Liberators are ez mode damage, just like Ultralisks are a move bio stompers. The solution is to nerf Liberator AA capabilities so 25 + Mutalisks don't get a moved by 6 Liberators and remove the extra armor or nerf Chitinous Plating. Oh. and then while they're at it, they can actually do what they said they were going to do with the tanks because in reality nobody besides David thinks that tankivacs is cool and the entire community just wants tanks that do their job better. Boom, there you go, ZvT the best and most balanced match up to watch and play again, problem solved. I love all you retards that think you can speak for everybody. I fucking love Legacy. I love tankivacs. I main T. I think the Ultra buff is fine. Plenty of active players are thoroughly enjoying the game. i'd ease up on using "retards" to describe these people.. i'd say they are narcissists. that said, i basically agree. i'm having fun. what i love is the implication that they are somehow smarter. and have a deeper understanding of everything[. the guys who've been playing for years and say they've hated the game for years.. they're the best of all! this is a great game.. Greg Black and David Kim are doing a great job.
Eh, No. Greg Black was also the reason why Red Alert 3 was a mess balance wise and it had some potential. Maybe he is doing great job with Co-op mode yes but not the multiplayer. In fact SC 2 has similar problems RA 3 had:
- Air Units too strong while Anti-Air is too weak
- Listening too much to the wrong people (In RA 3 they listen too much to noobs,in SC 2 they listen too much to pros)
- One race underpowered compared to the others being too strong
- Overnerfing Units/strategies
Im sure there are more points that I can´t remember now.
And if DK would be doing a good job there wouldn´t be a lot of complains from the playerbase. Sure there are biased played but a large percentage of people are also worth listening too. Look at some Threads on US B.net. While there are a lot of said biased players its also the most active forum. People there are telling the devs they need to stop bufing harass Units, need to focus more on the general playerbase etc.
But a lot of players also got scared off when DK said "the best moments in SC 2 history come from worker harassment" . I think that made a lot of people stop playing SC 2 similar to the Infestor/BL era where a HUGE amount of players lost their faith and their interest in this game.
I disagree with you a lot about red alert. I can't think of a single patch to the game that went in the wrong direction. PK nerf was needed. soviet t3 nerf was needed. Mecha tango do less dmg to mecha tengu. Thank god. And the mass commander power rebalance made allied air awsome.
As for your comments about air units in ra3 I really disagree. I think that allied air was one of the most interesting playstyles I've ever encountered in an rts. Vindicator micro let good players realy differentiate themselves. And in ra3 anti air was actually a thing unlike in sc2 and it was very strong. I don't know why your claiming air in ra3 was to strong. Have you ever seen 10 bullfrogs shred like 15 vindicators??? Or even better just a handful of hydrofoils.Admitidly really strong allied players could micro thier air to go even with anti air but you could always build enough anti air to eventually deny air units. If anything I think that air in sc2 is awful, boring and less well designed then ra3 air. Vindicators are the best example of this. Vindicators packed a huge punch since three of them could pick off reactors. They also were very microable using the stop command you could cut thier bombing animation and thus do crazy things like kill 3 infantry units with one vindicator.Ra3 allied air was very active but due to the fuell/ bomb mechanic was never going to win you the game on its own since it had no continues form of dps and thus could only pick away at you opponent. it works how air should as a very strong very mobile and cost efficient element of your army that can harass and be powerful in short increments before needing to resuply. Air in sc2 is like if ra3 only had helicopters, Kirovas and mecha tango. It never has to base, it's strong when massed and it's Pretty amovey. In ra3 this was counteracted by hard counters on the ground and in the sea to air. The counters were not so strong they completely denied air but they were strong enough to deter mass air. in sc2 this does not exist so in super late game air is the best option.
Also which faction do you think Is worse than the other 2 in ra3? Empire?
|
Changes that should be made:
-Liberator range upgrade and AA attack removed
-tempest 6 supply
-parasitic bomb removed from the game
-ultralisk armor reverted
-tankivacs removed + tanks buffed
ggwp perfect game
|
Ra3 was actually a ton of fun, and I enjoyed it in the wc3 - sc2 window where i was tired of wc3.
Shame it didn't take off as well as having a more shitty engine than what I grew accustomed to from Wc3.
|
On April 17 2016 04:51 washikie wrote:On April 17 2016 04:15 Tresher wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 00:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 17 2016 00:40 TronJovolta wrote:On April 16 2016 08:51 Beelzebub1 wrote:On April 16 2016 08:47 PinoKotsBeer wrote:On April 16 2016 08:33 armazingerz1 wrote:On April 16 2016 08:14 Charoisaur wrote:On April 16 2016 08:08 armazingerz1 wrote:
The problem with liberators is that's the cheapest, easiest and most effective way to harass in the whole game. They kill some workers very fast, then they stop you from mining for a long time and make you some casualties when trying to kill it. And it's SO easy to produce and use. Nerfing the AA damage won't fix that, I don't think that reducing the reticule would be solution either (because it's hard to deploy them properly while defending), I would go with a range reduction plus a slight rate of fire reduction, so you would lose lesser workers and you would take lesser casualties while killing him. that's one of the misconception non-terran players have. Liberators are far from being little commitment because every liberator is a medivac you didn't make and you have to divide your starport production between medivacs and liberators. Every liberator you lose is huge because if you remake them you probably won't have enough medivacs to sufficiently heal your army and if you don't remake you won't have their zoning potential in your army. That's quite a little commitment if you consider that P and Z players have to build a specific building and air units to deal with it or asume casualties. It's by far the riskless way to harass oh noes! you have to make units to counter stuff. if only lings could fly as well....or wait, a flying ultralisk. so you dont have to build anything else. This is a dumb response to a valid point . Not saying Liberators are imbalanced means you play Terran and you like Liberators being imbalanced. Just like Zergs like to think that Zerg end game isn't OP vs. Terran with the Ultralisk. Liberators are ez mode damage, just like Ultralisks are a move bio stompers. The solution is to nerf Liberator AA capabilities so 25 + Mutalisks don't get a moved by 6 Liberators and remove the extra armor or nerf Chitinous Plating. Oh. and then while they're at it, they can actually do what they said they were going to do with the tanks because in reality nobody besides David thinks that tankivacs is cool and the entire community just wants tanks that do their job better. Boom, there you go, ZvT the best and most balanced match up to watch and play again, problem solved. I love all you retards that think you can speak for everybody. I fucking love Legacy. I love tankivacs. I main T. I think the Ultra buff is fine. Plenty of active players are thoroughly enjoying the game. i'd ease up on using "retards" to describe these people.. i'd say they are narcissists. that said, i basically agree. i'm having fun. what i love is the implication that they are somehow smarter. and have a deeper understanding of everything[. the guys who've been playing for years and say they've hated the game for years.. they're the best of all! this is a great game.. Greg Black and David Kim are doing a great job. Show nested quote +
Eh, No. Greg Black was also the reason why Red Alert 3 was a mess balance wise and it had some potential. Maybe he is doing great job with Co-op mode yes but not the multiplayer. In fact SC 2 has similar problems RA 3 had:
- Air Units too strong while Anti-Air is too weak
- Listening too much to the wrong people (In RA 3 they listen too much to noobs,in SC 2 they listen too much to pros)
- One race underpowered compared to the others being too strong
- Overnerfing Units/strategies
Im sure there are more points that I can´t remember now.
And if DK would be doing a good job there wouldn´t be a lot of complains from the playerbase. Sure there are biased played but a large percentage of people are also worth listening too. Look at some Threads on US B.net. While there are a lot of said biased players its also the most active forum. People there are telling the devs they need to stop buffing harass Units, need to focus more on the general playerbase etc.
But a lot of players also got scared off when DK said "the best moments in SC 2 history come from worker harassment" . I think that made a lot of people stop playing SC 2 similar to the Infestor/BL era where a HUGE amount of players lost their faith and their interest in this game.
I disagree with you a lot about red alert. I can't think of a single patch to the game that went in the wrong direction. PK nerf was needed. soviet t3 nerf was needed. Mecha tango do less dmg to mecha tengu. Thank god. And the mass commander power rebalance made allied air awsome. As for your comments about air units in ra3 I really disagree. I think that allied air was one of the most interesting playstyles I've ever encountered in an rts. Vindicator micro let good players realy differentiate themselves. And in ra3 anti air was actually a thing unlike in sc2 and it was very strong. I don't know why your claiming air in ra3 was to strong. Have you ever seen 10 bullfrogs shred like 15 vindicators??? Or even better just a handful of hydrofoils.Admitidly really strong allied players could micro thier air to go even with anti air but you could always build enough anti air to eventually deny air units. If anything I think that air in sc2 is awful, boring and less well designed then ra3 air. Vindicators are the best example of this. Vindicators packed a huge punch since three of them could pick off reactors. They also were very microable using the stop command you could cut thier bombing animation and thus do crazy things like kill 3 infantry units with one vindicator.Ra3 allied air was very active but due to the fuell/ bomb mechanic was never going to win you the game on its own since it had no continues form of dps and thus could only pick away at you opponent. it works how air should as a very strong very mobile and cost efficient element of your army that can harass and be powerful in short increments before needing to resuply. Air in sc2 is like if ra3 only had helicopters, Kirovas and mecha tango. It never has to base, it's strong when massed and it's Pretty amovey. In ra3 this was counteracted by hard counters on the ground and in the sea to air. The counters were not so strong they completely denied air but they were strong enough to deter mass air. in sc2 this does not exist so in super late game air is the best option. Also which faction do you think Is worse than the other 2 in ra3? Empire?
Soviet was the one. Mostly cause their Units were heavily overpriced. And they only had 3-5 good units to choose from. Soviet was supposed to be the Steamroll/Turtle Faction but the overbuffing of other factions Units made it that you have to micro so much that it was almost not doable for a non-pro (A problem SC 2 has too).
And I can already tell that you were an allies player just by how you describe allied air. Protocol Rebalance made allied air awesome and intersting? You mean stupid and OP. The middle tree was the only tree ever taken after that update because it was so strong (Air upgrades and Cryogeddon).Vindicators were one of the reasons allied air was so dumb. Especially the bomb micro thing. Even teching to this things was too fast. Airfield after Power Plant. Yeah it would be like having access to Liberators after Depot. You could take out a soviet players first few Flak Troopers that were actually supposed to counter Vindies. It was like early Oracles against Marines.
And don´t remind me of this piece of shit unit called Bullfrog. I never understood why Allies/Empire players said they were strong. They costed so much (900 Credits) and had so thin armor and could only attack air (!). For the price you could put 5 conscripts in there. Against Empire they were useless. If you build some of them your opponent just had to land their Tengus and they were sitting ducks. They couldn´t fight back. Against allies they were just as useless. If the soviet player had 10 bullfrogs you could just spam Infantry. Grats you just wasted tons of ressources on a unit that can´t fight back. For non Ra3 Players: Imagine the Cyclone only having an anti-air mode and getting countered by every ground based Unit. Hell even from the Units it was supposed to counter. Trust me bullfrogs were one of the worst designed AA Units I have ever encountered in an RTS. It may look different from an allies perspective tough.
There was also a lot of problems with the last patch that came out:
- Flak Troopers cost increase because they were "too strong" against buildings in Magnetic Mine mode. While this was true why were Javelin Soldiers made cheaper? They were much stronger than Flaks in Mine mode. Flaks in Mine mode were basiclly melee units while Javelins could do this from afar with their insane DPS Lock on mode.
- Sickles too overpriced. 900 Cr for a Unit that was barely usable. Their Jump mode was so slow and avoidable. While the allied equivalent the Riptide could transport, was stronger, amphibious and cheaper (700). Sickles had more armor but also much weaker.
- King Onis getting the same Health as Apoc Tanks. Which was beyond stupid because Apocs were supposed to be the Unit with the most Armor which was supposed to be Soviets stength. Oni Health increase negated that.
- Cryo Copters. OMG this Unit was so retarted. The C&C equivalent of Vipers which could shrink Units and negate all High tech Units. It had way too much armor and the shrink cooldown was too fast. Imagine Vipers abducting every 5 secs without energy cost. Not to mention Cryo rushes which were 98% uncounterable.
- Mecha Tengus. Vikings that were avaiable at Tier 1 with no delay switching modes with an upgrade that made them explode violently, which also did not do any friendly fire after patch. They could even take on tanks on their own. Just move them next to tanks and BOOM.
There is so much more. Allied Turret pushes, Empire fast tech to Tier 3 ( Just like 1-1-1 in SC 2), Soviet Tier 3 non existent (just like for Terrans in SC 2 ) AA for Empire being terrible, Empire mirrors being like ZvZ Roach wars the list goes on.
|
On April 17 2016 02:58 Grumbels wrote:
Can someone explain "buff over nerf" to me? I've pondered over its meaning for like three years and I still don't get it. I must be dense.
I too am a bit perplexed by this, I think it's simply because people want new content. If they buff they usually come up with something new that could be exciting.
Personally I prefer nerfs since this brings people to try out the before lesser strategies and thus it's the players that innovate new strategies, over having the designers of the game FORCE certain strategies that they think are cool.
|
On April 16 2016 20:40 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 20:07 Cyro wrote:On April 16 2016 19:43 Big J wrote:On April 16 2016 19:27 JackONeill wrote:On April 16 2016 13:09 H0i wrote:
I think this community update shows the issue clearly.
The community in general wants the game to change, and change a lot in design. Fixing all kinds of design problems with for example protoss, buffing underused units more actively, quality of life patches, etc.
David Kim / Blizzard want to keep the game about the same, and apply some miniscule, minor changes, maybe once upon a time, in order to 'fix balance'.
DK sees the game as a 99% finished product. The community sees it as maybe half finished. This is the cause of all the disconnect between the community and blizzard/DK. => this exactly. But then again, I don't understand how blizzard can be so oblivious to the community's wishes. And if they know what the community wants, why the fuck are they stalling for time? And in general the game is finished. It's their game and their designs. They pushed them into a beta, they made some smaller and bigger changes to their ideas and they released an expansion. Job done, everything else is maintenance. That's not what blizzard said during the beta and pre-launch. There was a big emphasis on getting the game to a relatively stable point in mid beta and then continuing to iterate quickly post-launch, which didn't happen. Corporate language. They always put some words and phrases into it along the lines "if necessary", "changes to make the best starcraft possible", "stay active" and all that stuff. Basically, they always have backdoors to argue that nothing is necessary, that they already created the best starcraft and that they are actively watching. Also they gave no timeline for changes at all and pretty openly said that they are confident in the game version they are releasing. Maybe someday they will do an expansion-ish patch, but until blizzcon this year we are going to play this game version with minimum balance patching and that was always pretty crystal clear.
I think that everyone understood that already. What I don't get is what's the point for blizzard? Despite the few people liking the game in its current state, player base and viewership seems to be dropping (I'd really like some numbers about that) and the community in its majority is pissed at Blizzard.
So what is the point of stalling for time while managing the community's expectation? To milk the SC2 dry-titted cow to the maximum in the shortest amount of time, to then stop paying devs to work on starcraft and reassign them?
For all people liking/loving starcraft and starcraft 2, blizzard giving up on this game is quite sad.
The main argument I've heard against that is "yeah but people are liking the game it's in its best state ever!". Again, I'd like to have some numbers to show but lotv's viewership and playerbase seems to be hermoraging. I mean I played a saturday afternoon few weeks ago, and I noticed : only 7k games on EU. 7k games ! That's nothing. SC2 streams numbers also seem to be shrinking. Maybe I'm wrong, but Blizz stalling for time therefore seems really dumb and sad for RTS as a genre.
|
On April 16 2016 02:39 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:- 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.
So, someone brings up a theory, and Blizzard's community response, out loud to everyone, is to wonder if it is true...
Does anyone from Blizzard know what is going on at all?
|
On April 17 2016 04:51 washikie wrote:On April 17 2016 04:15 Tresher wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 00:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 17 2016 00:40 TronJovolta wrote:On April 16 2016 08:51 Beelzebub1 wrote:On April 16 2016 08:47 PinoKotsBeer wrote:On April 16 2016 08:33 armazingerz1 wrote:On April 16 2016 08:14 Charoisaur wrote:On April 16 2016 08:08 armazingerz1 wrote:
The problem with liberators is that's the cheapest, easiest and most effective way to harass in the whole game. They kill some workers very fast, then they stop you from mining for a long time and make you some casualties when trying to kill it. And it's SO easy to produce and use. Nerfing the AA damage won't fix that, I don't think that reducing the reticule would be solution either (because it's hard to deploy them properly while defending), I would go with a range reduction plus a slight rate of fire reduction, so you would lose lesser workers and you would take lesser casualties while killing him. that's one of the misconception non-terran players have. Liberators are far from being little commitment because every liberator is a medivac you didn't make and you have to divide your starport production between medivacs and liberators. Every liberator you lose is huge because if you remake them you probably won't have enough medivacs to sufficiently heal your army and if you don't remake you won't have their zoning potential in your army. That's quite a little commitment if you consider that P and Z players have to build a specific building and air units to deal with it or asume casualties. It's by far the riskless way to harass oh noes! you have to make units to counter stuff. if only lings could fly as well....or wait, a flying ultralisk. so you dont have to build anything else. This is a dumb response to a valid point . Not saying Liberators are imbalanced means you play Terran and you like Liberators being imbalanced. Just like Zergs like to think that Zerg end game isn't OP vs. Terran with the Ultralisk. Liberators are ez mode damage, just like Ultralisks are a move bio stompers. The solution is to nerf Liberator AA capabilities so 25 + Mutalisks don't get a moved by 6 Liberators and remove the extra armor or nerf Chitinous Plating. Oh. and then while they're at it, they can actually do what they said they were going to do with the tanks because in reality nobody besides David thinks that tankivacs is cool and the entire community just wants tanks that do their job better. Boom, there you go, ZvT the best and most balanced match up to watch and play again, problem solved. I love all you retards that think you can speak for everybody. I fucking love Legacy. I love tankivacs. I main T. I think the Ultra buff is fine. Plenty of active players are thoroughly enjoying the game. i'd ease up on using "retards" to describe these people.. i'd say they are narcissists. that said, i basically agree. i'm having fun. what i love is the implication that they are somehow smarter. and have a deeper understanding of everything[. the guys who've been playing for years and say they've hated the game for years.. they're the best of all! this is a great game.. Greg Black and David Kim are doing a great job. Show nested quote +
Eh, No. Greg Black was also the reason why Red Alert 3 was a mess balance wise and it had some potential. Maybe he is doing great job with Co-op mode yes but not the multiplayer. In fact SC 2 has similar problems RA 3 had:
- Air Units too strong while Anti-Air is too weak
- Listening too much to the wrong people (In RA 3 they listen too much to noobs,in SC 2 they listen too much to pros)
- One race underpowered compared to the others being too strong
- Overnerfing Units/strategies
Im sure there are more points that I can´t remember now.
And if DK would be doing a good job there wouldn´t be a lot of complains from the playerbase. Sure there are biased played but a large percentage of people are also worth listening too. Look at some Threads on US B.net. While there are a lot of said biased players its also the most active forum. People there are telling the devs they need to stop bufing harass Units, need to focus more on the general playerbase etc.
But a lot of players also got scared off when DK said "the best moments in SC 2 history come from worker harassment" . I think that made a lot of people stop playing SC 2 similar to the Infestor/BL era where a HUGE amount of players lost their faith and their interest in this game.
I disagree with you a lot about red alert. I can't think of a single patch to the game that went in the wrong direction. PK nerf was needed. soviet t3 nerf was needed. Mecha tango do less dmg to mecha tengu. Thank god. And the mass commander power rebalance made allied air awsome. As for your comments about air units in ra3 I really disagree. I think that allied air was one of the most interesting playstyles I've ever encountered in an rts. Vindicator micro let good players realy differentiate themselves. And in ra3 anti air was actually a thing unlike in sc2 and it was very strong. I don't know why your claiming air in ra3 was to strong. Have you ever seen 10 bullfrogs shred like 15 vindicators??? Or even better just a handful of hydrofoils.Admitidly really strong allied players could micro thier air to go even with anti air but you could always build enough anti air to eventually deny air units. If anything I think that air in sc2 is awful, boring and less well designed then ra3 air. Vindicators are the best example of this. Vindicators packed a huge punch since three of them could pick off reactors. They also were very microable using the stop command you could cut thier bombing animation and thus do crazy things like kill 3 infantry units with one vindicator.Ra3 allied air was very active but due to the fuell/ bomb mechanic was never going to win you the game on its own since it had no continues form of dps and thus could only pick away at you opponent. it works how air should as a very strong very mobile and cost efficient element of your army that can harass and be powerful in short increments before needing to resuply. Air in sc2 is like if ra3 only had helicopters, Kirovas and mecha tango. It never has to base, it's strong when massed and it's Pretty amovey. In ra3 this was counteracted by hard counters on the ground and in the sea to air. The counters were not so strong they completely denied air but they were strong enough to deter mass air. in sc2 this does not exist so in super late game air is the best option. Also which faction do you think Is worse than the other 2 in ra3? Empire?
Nice to see some old ra3 players here.
Eh...but he's right. Air units were pretty OP in RA3 too. Air units basically dominated that entire game. Vindicators, migs mecha tengus, mass cyrocoptors, etc.
There were even all-in builds/MCV rushes with cyrocoptors that could end the game in like 3 minutes.
SC2 air problems really do seem reminiscent of RA3. Air was really dominant in that game, whoever had the superior air army usually was winning the game.
Btw, I also remember doing a sick new meta turtle soviet strategy that abused their navy/mass walls/tesla coils. People forget soviet's navy in that game was the best of all 3 by far, and on a few maps really abusable.
|
On April 17 2016 04:15 Tresher wrote:
And if DK would be doing a good job there wouldn´t be a lot of complains from the playerbase. Sure there are biased played but a large percentage of people are also worth listening too. Look at some Threads on US B.net. While there are a lot of said biased players its also the most active forum. People there are telling the devs they need to stop bufing harass Units, need to focus more on the general playerbase etc.
But a lot of players also got scared off when DK said "the best moments in SC 2 history come from worker harassment" . I think that made a lot of people stop playing SC 2 similar to the Infestor/BL era where a HUGE amount of players lost their faith and their interest in this game.
If you think a lot of people complain on forums about SC2, that's only the tip of the iceberg. I loved SC2 very much in WoL, and I firmly believe that it only went downhill from there. Even the Brood Lord/Infestor era was bearable to me, I thought it was exciting to see if a player could manage to outfox the zerg player by exploiting their weaknesses in mobility, not really justifying it, but that's what I enjoyed about it, I enjoyed the game a lot in general back then. It was only when they made large changes to the game that I saw it getting worse in a real way. You know the expression: "better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"? That's how Blizzard looks to me with the way they handle SC2. before an expansion comes, when they only do the smallest of changes, things stay pretty consistent, and if you enjoy that expansion, then you pretty much always will. But every time they try to make a big change, they always messed things up more for it.
Back to the point, for every person like myself who is disgusted with what SC2 has become, yet still bothers to voice their discontent, there are probably another 100 people who got fed up, left, and never looked back. If you got everyone who ever played SC2 for a substantial period of time into a room, you'd probably hear a hell of a lot more discontent with the way SC2 has gone than you do now. This game has its staunch defenders for some reason, and always will, who say that if it isn't moving at a breakneck pace, it isn't an RTS, that it actually doesn't move fast enough as a game, that if you don't like it you shouldn't play it, and so on and so forth. I find these statements to be the grasping at whatever straws one can find, to deny the direction that one's most beloved game is going.
I defended Blizzard for a good long time, but eventually I just felt like an idiot, because the moves they were making made no logical sense to me anymore. I couldn't follow their logic, I couldn't even tell if it was there, the way they justified all their major changes was nothing short of baffling to me. All I know is, a game, that I so loved for years, has been turned into a parody of itself, and is no longer an experience I can enjoy, it is not something I play a game to experience. If I wanted to be challenged to see how fast I could move, and if I failed I got immensely frustrated, I would babysit for a couple with 10 children. At least then, when I actually manage to succeed, I feel like I actually did something important for someone, I'd have something to show for it. I have nothing to show for my faith in Blizzard but years of pain.
|
I think a small buff for collusi might be really good for the mid-level scene. In plat its almost all T and Z, mostly cuz P is hard as sht to play.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
In plat its almost all T and Z, mostly cuz P is hard as sht to play
It's similar all the way to the top of the ladder aside from GM being a bit more balanced out
Masters:
Z - 34.61%
P - 22.43%
T - 36.80%
EU/NA stats have more zerg & less terran
|
On April 17 2016 09:28 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 02:58 Grumbels wrote:
Can someone explain "buff over nerf" to me? I've pondered over its meaning for like three years and I still don't get it. I must be dense. I too am a bit perplexed by this, I think it's simply because people want new content. If they buff they usually come up with something new that could be exciting. Personally I prefer nerfs since this brings people to try out the before lesser strategies and thus it's the players that innovate new strategies, over having the designers of the game FORCE certain strategies that they think are cool.
At one point everyone were talking how you need to buff because in BW there were so many "OP" units and BW was so good. So naturally we should always buff in SC2. Thats what i remember about the buff/nerf talk in balance threads.
|
On April 17 2016 13:46 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 09:28 ejozl wrote:On April 17 2016 02:58 Grumbels wrote:
Can someone explain "buff over nerf" to me? I've pondered over its meaning for like three years and I still don't get it. I must be dense. I too am a bit perplexed by this, I think it's simply because people want new content. If they buff they usually come up with something new that could be exciting. Personally I prefer nerfs since this brings people to try out the before lesser strategies and thus it's the players that innovate new strategies, over having the designers of the game FORCE certain strategies that they think are cool. At one point everyone were talking how you need to buff because in BW there were so many "OP" units and BW was so good. So naturally we should always buff in SC2. Thats what i remember about the buff/nerf talk in balance threads.
I think the OP feeling every unit had in BW stemmed from things other than unit strength, and had more to do with what players could bring out of them, given enough skill. When you can use a unit well enough to get a much greater effect from it than the average player, you get the same feeling you get when you're playing with something that's legitimately overpowered. The current SC2 team misunderstood this(among many other things, but that's a blog-worthy topic), and took it to mean that buffs are better than nerfs no matter what. It may also have to do with their obsession with spectators, and the need to have units and abilities that are flashy, as part of the 'terrible terrible damage' paradigm. No matter which way you look at it though, it's genuinely an awful situation.
|
On April 17 2016 04:15 Tresher wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 00:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 17 2016 00:40 TronJovolta wrote:On April 16 2016 08:51 Beelzebub1 wrote:On April 16 2016 08:47 PinoKotsBeer wrote:On April 16 2016 08:33 armazingerz1 wrote:On April 16 2016 08:14 Charoisaur wrote:On April 16 2016 08:08 armazingerz1 wrote:
The problem with liberators is that's the cheapest, easiest and most effective way to harass in the whole game. They kill some workers very fast, then they stop you from mining for a long time and make you some casualties when trying to kill it. And it's SO easy to produce and use. Nerfing the AA damage won't fix that, I don't think that reducing the reticule would be solution either (because it's hard to deploy them properly while defending), I would go with a range reduction plus a slight rate of fire reduction, so you would lose lesser workers and you would take lesser casualties while killing him. that's one of the misconception non-terran players have. Liberators are far from being little commitment because every liberator is a medivac you didn't make and you have to divide your starport production between medivacs and liberators. Every liberator you lose is huge because if you remake them you probably won't have enough medivacs to sufficiently heal your army and if you don't remake you won't have their zoning potential in your army. That's quite a little commitment if you consider that P and Z players have to build a specific building and air units to deal with it or asume casualties. It's by far the riskless way to harass oh noes! you have to make units to counter stuff. if only lings could fly as well....or wait, a flying ultralisk. so you dont have to build anything else. This is a dumb response to a valid point . Not saying Liberators are imbalanced means you play Terran and you like Liberators being imbalanced. Just like Zergs like to think that Zerg end game isn't OP vs. Terran with the Ultralisk. Liberators are ez mode damage, just like Ultralisks are a move bio stompers. The solution is to nerf Liberator AA capabilities so 25 + Mutalisks don't get a moved by 6 Liberators and remove the extra armor or nerf Chitinous Plating. Oh. and then while they're at it, they can actually do what they said they were going to do with the tanks because in reality nobody besides David thinks that tankivacs is cool and the entire community just wants tanks that do their job better. Boom, there you go, ZvT the best and most balanced match up to watch and play again, problem solved. I love all you retards that think you can speak for everybody. I fucking love Legacy. I love tankivacs. I main T. I think the Ultra buff is fine. Plenty of active players are thoroughly enjoying the game. i'd ease up on using "retards" to describe these people.. i'd say they are narcissists. that said, i basically agree. i'm having fun. what i love is the implication that they are somehow smarter. and have a deeper understanding of everything. the guys who've been playing for years and say they've hated the game for years.. they're the best of all! this is a great game.. Greg Black and David Kim are doing a great job. Eh, No. Greg Black was also the reason why Red Alert 3 was a mess balance wise and it had some potential. Maybe he is doing great job with Co-op mode yes but not the multiplayer. In fact SC 2 has similar problems RA 3 had: - Air Units too strong while Anti-Air is too weak - Listening too much to the wrong people (In RA 3 they listen too much to noobs,in SC 2 they listen too much to pros) - One race underpowered compared to the others being too strong - Overnerfing Units/strategies Im sure there are more points that I can´t remember now. And if DK would be doing a good job there wouldn´t be a lot of complains from the playerbase. Sure there are biased played but a large percentage of people are also worth listening too. Look at some Threads on US B.net. While there are a lot of said biased players its also the most active forum. People there are telling the devs they need to stop bufing harass Units, need to focus more on the general playerbase etc. But a lot of players also got scared off when DK said "the best moments in SC 2 history come from worker harassment" . I think that made a lot of people stop playing SC 2 similar to the Infestor/BL era where a HUGE amount of players lost their faith and their interest in this game.
given the limited resources Black had at his disposal at EALA as the studio was being dismantled due to funding cuts he did a great job with RA3.
the ConquerCup results pretty much show that at the top level RA3 was pretty well balanced. I don't know if Technique is still around on this board. Ask him.. he can give you a detailed 30 page report on RA3s balance. Maybe not perfectly balanced.. but perfectly balancing a 3-race-diverse-race RTS in less than 1 year is nearly impossible. MAYBE Imperial Warriors were slightly at an advantage over PKs... maybe and if so.. its slight. Greg BLack did a fucking phenomenal job balancing RA3. PHENOMENAL.
i've already outlined why the entire genre is in decline. it has nothing to do with the quality of any single title within the genre.
your comments are like saying.. "you know if pacman were a better game every North American citiy and town would still have arcades in every shopping mall and arcade cabinets would be in every corner store and billiard hall just like 1983 ". THe giant macro forces at work causing the decline of the genre are far bigger than DK, BLack, ATVI... or even ATVI and MS and EA combined. And its these kind of giant macro forces that buried the entire arcade industry in NA.
|
On April 17 2016 13:58 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 13:46 RaFox17 wrote:On April 17 2016 09:28 ejozl wrote:On April 17 2016 02:58 Grumbels wrote:
Can someone explain "buff over nerf" to me? I've pondered over its meaning for like three years and I still don't get it. I must be dense. I too am a bit perplexed by this, I think it's simply because people want new content. If they buff they usually come up with something new that could be exciting. Personally I prefer nerfs since this brings people to try out the before lesser strategies and thus it's the players that innovate new strategies, over having the designers of the game FORCE certain strategies that they think are cool. At one point everyone were talking how you need to buff because in BW there were so many "OP" units and BW was so good. So naturally we should always buff in SC2. Thats what i remember about the buff/nerf talk in balance threads. I think the OP feeling every unit had in BW stemmed from things other than unit strength, and had more to do with what players could bring out of them, given enough skill. When you can use a unit well enough to get a much greater effect from it than the average player, you get the same feeling you get when you're playing with something that's legitimately overpowered. The current SC2 team misunderstood this(among many other things, but that's a blog-worthy topic), and took it to mean that buffs are better than nerfs no matter what. It may also have to do with their obsession with spectators, and the need to have units and abilities that are flashy, as part of the 'terrible terrible damage' paradigm. No matter which way you look at it though, it's genuinely an awful situation.
Many people here at team liquid were very vocal about buffs over nerfs, so it´s not only Blizzard. BW was their justification.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Buffing repeatedly instead of appropriate nerfs gives you some pretty bad power creep, we've seen it with mobility
|
I thought it also had to do with the removal of the reaper and to a lesser extent the thor from WoL because Blizzard might have been overzealous protecting the competitive integrity of the game. So only a short while after Thorzain used thors in a certain way it was removed from the game. But I didn't really see how that would lead one to consider buffs over nerfs, just that Blizz should be held to higher standards for their patching or initial design and not cop out by quickly removing everything that is too powerful without compensating.
|
And well, I think buffing and nerfing is okay for community phraseology, but game designers should be way more careful about employing such words. Because a buff to one unit is a nerf to every other unit, it is zero sum, so the only real effect prioritizing buffs over nerfs will have is power creep and proportions that are out of whack. For a game designer to indulge in such theories seems quite inadvisable to me. I agree there is a conversation to be had over how decisive units should be allowed to be given inadequate counterplay and how this all depends to a degree on some structural features of the game like speed, clumping, interface, unit design etc. But I think a lead game designer should have a different way of framing this debate than promoting the buff over nerf thing.
And imo, the only reason buff over nerf as a balancing theory takes hold is because of the community disliking nerfs to their favorite units, so thy come up with game design myths where you should just buff units instead of nerfing units and everyone will be happy all of the time, -- no hurt feelings. Game designers should not take this perspective and should not cater to community emotions, they should have a dispassionate view.
So we get to the current point where I still don't know what DK or the community specifically means with buff over nerf.
|
On April 16 2016 02:55 Glorfindel! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 02:42 b0ub0u wrote:
I still think that the Liberator anti-ground need to be tweaked. At least at my level (Diamond) it is amazing how this unit can affect a game. They disrupt my mining so much it is crazy!
I have even seen people rushing to the range upgrade and then they deny my ability to mine minerals completely. I have seen Oracles and DTs going into my mineral lines, killing all my workers. It disrupts my mining so much it is crazy!!!  Really like the suggestions this time.
Not only oracles or dts kill workers fast.
Dont forget, harass is not cheap. If you are on 3 or more bases, worker harass wont deal much damage, because 3 bases produce a lot of workers in a minute. 12s per worker per base, 15 workers in a min from 3 bases, add larva, chrono or mules and worker harass is almost meaningless. Your opponent is not a proplayer, he wont be able to macro while harassing. That gives you even a bigger advantage.
Its important that you react properly. In 90% of the cases, you should retreat with workers to a safe point or just run away (it takes time to get in range and attack). Sometimes there are fancy micro tricks such as hold pos, stacking and so on. But its for experienced players.
Some units need to deal high damage to justify their investment. For example, an oracle needs to kill 3-4 workers, but without oracles, protoss cant open air (similar with dts).
Another point is that a move has no meaning, if it has no impact. If you micro or flank, but it doesnt kill something, is it still a good move? How do you recognize good moves, if it kills units after 1-2min?
|
Stop with that "buff instead of nerf" nonsense. Some things are stupidly strong and need to get the hammer for good : as they explain, it's hard to touch core units, and I wish the general play was more centered around core units for all races.
Still, it's incredible to read things like "P open phoenix to deter drops and ravagers". No, we don't : fast 3 gates is far safer vs those kind of all-ins. Do you even play the game ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
