|
Team Color Selection
We wanted to let you know that the team color selection that we talked about last time should be going out sometime next month due to feedback around the suggestion being super positive. We were initially planning for it to go out this summer, but the team members who are implementing the feature were able to find a more efficient implementation, so we were able to speed up the release date. Players will be able to customize the “team colors” which they see (which by default, display the player as green, enemies as red, allies as yellow, and neutral units as white) . It will be possible to set these 4 colors to whichever colors you prefer.
Protoss
There has been a lot of talk around Protoss lately regarding Protoss needing help, diversity in build orders in PvZ, and questions on buffs vs. nerfs. We wanted to discuss these points in detail this week.
Helping Protoss and Protoss Build Order Diversity in PvZ
First, we would like to point out the main reason we’ve been exploring things like Ravager nerf or Overlord drop nerf were to increase Protoss strategic diversity and to help Protoss early game vs. Zerg. Because of these two threats, Protoss looks to be opening Phoenix as they are quite effective at stopping drops, and also are able to be effective versus Ravagers while the Protoss buys time to time to tech up to Robo. Exploring changes to Ravagers or Overlords drops are still on the table, and we’re have two lines of thought on this front right now.
- If the top pros are correct on their stance, we can do a nerf in this area to help Protoss opening diversity while helping out Zerg with other changes such as nerfing Immortals in the later stages of the game or exploring changes to mi- game Zerg options such as Swarm Host buffs.
- If not, we can just simply do a nerf to Zerg on this front to help Protoss out, and we’d have a better situation not only with the strength of each side in PvZ, but Protoss will also be able to have a bit more diversity in openings.
Buffs over Nerfs
While we agree that its preferable to do a buff over a nerf where possible, we don’t see this as our highest priority. Our highest priority for making balance changes in Starcraft 2 has been to make the smallest change possible that will only affect the specific, problematic area of the game. Doing buffs over nerfs is secondary to this main goal.
By “smallest changes possible,” we mean the change only affects that one, specific balance issue (not necessarily that the change is numerically small). This is a common misunderstanding we see in newer designers, so we just wanted to clear this up so that there is little room for miscommunication. For example, 20% damage buff to Battlecruisers will be a much smaller change than a 10% buff to Marines with this definition, because the overall impact of changing Marines to this degree would be much larger.
I’m sure many of you remember the situation we had in HotS where ZvZ games came down to whoever has more Mutalisks was the winner. If we look first for buffs instead of seeking for the “smallest possible changes”, we could buff units that are good vs. Mutalisks that weren’t used such as Hydralisks or Infestors. However, either of these changes would have been such huge changes in other matchups that were not problematic at the time (infestors were used vs. Terran and Roach/Hydralisk pushes were common in PvZ). We also think that a nerf to Mutalisk would be just as bad, because Mutalisks were also used often in other matchups. In this specific case, we found a small change that happened to be a buff, and we went with the Spore Crawler +bio damage change so that there was no impact in TvZ and PvZ.
Generally speaking, the game’s most basic units are very difficult to touch due to how often they are used, how large in numbers they are used, and how tight the balance is around them currently. A 10% buff to units like Roaches, Stalkers, or Marauders is clearly not the same as a 10% buff to a unit that’s only specifically used in certain situations such as Vikings. With that said though, obviously we would prefer to find the smallest changes that are buffs rather than nerfs, but we wanted to get this information out there so that the discussions happening when there is a need for a balance change can take this into account. If the popular suggestion is something like Stalkers need a damage buff, obviously it’ll be near impossible to execute on that. Alternatively, say we were to suggest a nerf, but someone in the community was able to locate a buff instead that is even a smaller change that affects only that issue, obviously we would go with a buff instead in that situation (such as the old Brood Lord and Viper interactions).
Next Balance Test Map
The current thinking is that there isn’t enough information right now to make sure that the top pro feedback regarding PvZ is in as severe of a situation as the feedback suggests. We’d like to continue testing changes while discussing potential solutions and figuring out the specific situation of PvZ right now by playing and analyzing games.
There was also a good suggestion on the Overlord transport upgrade of having it require the speed upgrade instead, so we would definitely like to try it out. Changing the Thor to be single target and better against armored air units while making Liberators more anti light focused against air is another thing we would like to explore for sure. We believe that if we go this route, maybe the Liberator range nerf and banshee buff aren’t needed like many players point out.
We can release the next balance test map as early as next Thursday, so we’d like to hear your thoughts over the weekend before making this call.
Other things that we believe are not “must haves” that we wanted to get your input on are:
- Changing the Immortal Barrier ability to be much less powerful, but also lowering the cooldown as well so that each use isn’t as extreme.
- 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On April 16 2016 02:39 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Helping Protoss and Protoss Build Order Diversity in PvZ First, we would like to point out the main reason we’ve been exploring things like Ravager nerf or Overlord drop nerf were to increase Protoss strategic diversity and to help Protoss early game vs. Zerg. Because of these two threats, Protoss looks to be opening Phoenix as they are quite effective at stopping drops, and also are able to be effective versus Ravagers while the Protoss buys time to time to tech up to Robo.
Are they for real? I am starting to lose all hope that Blizzard actually has any idea of what's going on in this game.
|
The most disappointing thing for me in this was buffing colossi. They buff that so it's "easier" for lower level players lol... Game will be back to boring seeing colossi every game with their A move. They were going in such a good direction to if they do go this route.
|
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.
I get what you are saying. I still feel that these are much easier to deal with than Liberators. Spores? They just dance around those. And with range upgrade I can't kill them until I have air myself. If I didn't get a spire I am dead.
It is my nightmare unit to play against.
|
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.
Yes, liberator is just too good against ground. Either lower its dps or reduce its damage. At the moment, it is too difficult to counter it without stargate even if it is just for worker harassment if a liberator is well placed.
|
United States572 Posts
Please don't bring back brainless colo compositions.
On April 16 2016 03:07 Shield 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. Yes, liberator is just too good against ground. Either lower its dps or reduce its damage. At the moment, it is too difficult to counter it without stargate even if it is just for worker harassment if a liberator is well placed.
I don't believe zerg/protoss players would be willing to entertain the necessary buff to terran army strength needed to reduce liberator strength. So rather than enduring another widow mine style nerf for the sake of 'design' they should just drop it.
|
Buff everyting, make everything faster as well, because; exciting!!!
It's "great" if they buff the colossus, so we can see HOTS game all over again. More lasers, corrosive bile everywhere, Micheal bayplosions! We already recieved a lot of blooming effect, all we need now is more lensflares! JJ abrams will be so jelly! oh wait, lets rethink, maybe the problem is caused by the many "random" buffs. Broodlord range, ling buff, ultralisk absurd , corruptors attacking buildings etc etc. But that would be too obvious to mention.
Helping Protoss and Protoss Build Order Diversity
So what about mech? because 99,9% bio with liberators seems enough diversity. 0,1% is the few skyterran games.
|
a colossus buff creates a scar on my brain
|
|
|
Blizzard still stalling while the game is fucking hemoraging players and viewership. Okay. Seems fine.
|
While the idea of changing the Immortal Barrier to less cooldown and less damage absorbed does sound cool enough, the intention does seem to be based around an overall nerf and that really troubles me.
To me the immortal right now is the most fundamentally core unit Protoss has right now against all races as it really serves a key role against a variety of units in all matchups that otherwise could be hard to replace.
I agree with the Balance Update that the goal should be to have the smallest/most efficient impact on the game to specifically isolate and target a problem in the specific matchup, I would like to propose an alternative to nerfing the Immortal as the following suggestion would largely only target the specific issue:
- Increase Corrupter +massive damage.
This change will allow Zerg to play the same and other strategies as now, but with a better ability to transition to Brood Lords. Brood Lords are great at helping with attacks against Immortals, but due to the fact that Protoss can tech to Tempest, Zerg tends to lack proper DPS versus Tempests. By allowing a better synergy between Brood Lord and Corrupter, we can actually see Zerg transition beyond their midgame aggression and into a Corrupter-based composition when facing Tempests.
The effect of the change will be very small with almost no impcat on ZvT and ZvZ but will definitely help Zerg in lategame PvZ.
There are other possibilities like buffing abduct range or parasitic bomb +massive damage, but I believe this is the most solid I have seen/heard so far that exactly lives up to the design philosophy stated in the Balance Update.
With that being said, I like the idea of making Liberator a +light oriented unit with Thor being a +armored AA unit.
Making Overlord speed a requirement for Overlord transport seems to be the perfect solution for a possible change on that area assuming we still believe there are issues even with the new maps and map changes.
|
more strength to Colossi
no
I'm glad they are backpedaling on the liberator and banshee changes but I hope thors stay good against mutas so you can use them vs a ling bane muta army which is their only use atm.
|
Pls no colossusbuff :O I thought they always tried to balance around the highlevel competition.
|
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.
What does he mean "if this is true"? Isn't he aware he has all of the statistical data available to be analyzed so he can be 100% of whether this is the case or not.
And this isn't a new theory at all. It's the most obvious one. David Kim's comments just tilts me.
That aside, I rather have them increase the micro skillcap of Zerg. The race just has too many amove friendly units.
|
I just wish they would buff terrans lategame. It's tiring to play on a timer every game.
|
I think all of this sounds nice and dandy, but there should be design changes or quality of life changes as well and IMO sometimes over balance.
The Immortal nerf I think is both unwarranted and also in the wrong direction. It would be cool to see pro's turn off auto-cast more and use it manually. So I think if it should indeed be nerfed, it would be much cooler to nerf the cooldown, as that promotes the use of manual Barrier, also the counter utility of being able to proc the shield, with just one shot would be much stronger.
|
plz buff the colossus, id come back to sc2. old ppl like me get arthritis from microing disruptors 
|
Let's go through it step by step:
PvZ build order diversity
Protoss don't open phoenix because of drops and ravagers. If you specifically wanted to just defend those there are better options. But phoenixes are much more all-around, give protoss vital scouting, deter the zerg from mutalisk play to counter immortals, can do a bit of damage to drones, overlords and queens and most of all deter zerg from mutalisk play.
If you nerf drops or ravagers protoss will still play phoenixes.
Also, what about the other races? I want build order diversity in TvP too and not always open with a CC, a starport, a factory and 3 barracks. Same goes for TvZ and TvT... give me more openings than factory/starport/a few rax expansions.
Colossus buff
If you buff this unit it will be used on the prolevel too, in particular in TvP. If you want to buff the colossus for easier splash damage in lower leagues without affecting the prolevel, buff it a bit but nerf its mobility a bit.
Buffs over nerfs
Just do whatever is best. Don't choose a buff over a nerf just because it sells better to the community.
Immortal barrier change
Sounds like an interesting idea.
|
Are they going to patch anything at all soon?
They'be theres a lot community updates (2 per week) but there has been only 1 patch since release over 5 months ago.
They discuss a lot but do too few.
|
"such as Swarm Host buffs."
pls blizzard, don't.
"For example, 20% damage buff to Battlecruisers will be a much smaller change"
pls blizzard, do.
The warp prism pick up range is still too strong in my opinion.
I don't like the amount of balance discussion we have because I feel it goes only one way. It's only tease, tease, tease, you are happy when I am on my knees, one day is fine, and the next is black, so if you want me off your back, well come on and let me know, should I toss or should I go?
However I have to admit that you commitment on making the map pool better for every race was a nice touch.
oh Blizzard I don't know if I love or if I hate you ><
|
On April 16 2016 04:03 Lexender wrote:
Are they going to patch anything at all soon?
They'be theres a lot community updates (2 per week) but there has been only 1 patch since release over 5 months ago.
They discuss a lot but do too few.
Blizzard in general is quite slow to do anything relevant tbh. I still don't understand why we cannot have a real test server with matchmaking. They could test a lot of stuff there (stuff the community actually wants as well) and see if it works.
It's quite frustrating that nothing ever happens and David Kim only ever talks about "looking into it", "cool" and whatever else he feels like that day -.-
I don't have any strong opinions on the proposed changes other than the colossus, no pls don't buff that unit.
What about the Nydus?
|
On April 16 2016 04:03 Lexender wrote:
Are they going to patch anything at all soon?
They'be theres a lot community updates (2 per week) but there has been only 1 patch since release over 5 months ago.
They discuss a lot but do too few.
I guess the obvious answer is no. It seems balance at top tier korea is somewhat fine, so they will not change anything really. Some people still hope they will actually do design changes or entirely rework a race, but, at this point, I don't think this is likely to happen at all. These community feedbacks are mostly to keep the community believing something big will actually happen. They propose ideas, put them in balance map tests (that nobody really plays because they lack matchmaking), and then simply dismiss the ideas, sometimes not even discussing why the ideas were dropped at all.
|
Guys, we are not going to go back to the swarmhost camping days, stop freaking out about minor buffs to swarmhost. It is by far the least used unit in the game right now. Many pros even have it off hotkey ffs.
|
Immortal suggestions sounds great, wouldn't mind a colossus buff either. I think the Warp Prism will still need a nerf or at least a cost increase in the future, but maybe it's not the most pressing issue.
|
On April 16 2016 04:10 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 04:03 Lexender wrote:
Are they going to patch anything at all soon?
They'be theres a lot community updates (2 per week) but there has been only 1 patch since release over 5 months ago.
They discuss a lot but do too few. I guess the obvious answer is no. It seems balance at top tier korea is somewhat fine, so they will not change anything really. Some people still hope they will actually do design changes or entirely rework a race, but, at this point, I don't think this is likely to happen at all. These community feedbacks are mostly to keep the community believing something big will actually happen. They propose ideas, put them in balance map tests (that nobody really plays because they lack matchmaking), and then simply dismiss the ideas, sometimes not even discussing why the ideas were dropped at all.
I do agree with this as a whole, but I don't see what's the big idea behind it. Fact is, if SC2 keeps being the way it is, it's gonna die through the next two years. Even economically, it's not worth it to pay a dev team to just write a PR piece every week.
So my best guess is that the buisness strategy of blizzard is to let starcraft 2 die and finish its lifespan while keeping the game 50% balance for the KRs, while maintaining the community on life support with community feedback updates. Maybe it's to setup WC4? Maybe it's to promote switches towards overwatch or another blizzard game. Fact is, it's killing SC2, and because as a company I don't see how they could be oblivious to the very truth that they're killing SC2.
|
If they want to buff some terran air unit to compensate for the needed liberator nerfs (AG -1 range and AA damage against armored) they could buff the BC instead of the banshee. I don't think I have ever seen one built in a LotV pro game yet..
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
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.
That's really not true at all.
|
Swarm host and colossus buffs? LOL
Somebody at Blizzard please accidentally hit shift + del while changing these units.
|
On April 16 2016 04:03 Lexender wrote:
Are they going to patch anything at all soon?
They'be theres a lot community updates (2 per week) but there has been only 1 patch since release over 5 months ago.
They discuss a lot but do too few.
And we all knew it would be like that. That's why the people with a brain pushed for changes in the beta. It's funny... when the game went live they all were so euphoric: "The game is great except for a few issues that ruin the fun. But blizzard is for sure going to patch nydus worms and warp prisms and make mech viable and nerf ultralisks. Just give it some time, they can't patch it all at once."
Yeah... right... lol.
|
No Colossi or SH buffs....please!
|
If im correct protoss have performed rather well lately on the highest level so i dont understand why they are still talking about "helping protoss". For me its seems terran needs the biggest buff.
In the PvT matchup it always seems like terran have a really hard time expanding as the "mineralbased" race which obviously makes the matchup really hard for terran.
Protoss on the other hand can rather quickly go up to 3 bases without terran being able to punishing it.
|
I guess the obvious answer is no. It seems balance at top tier korea is somewhat fine, so they will not change anything really
Not sure I agree with that. I feel TvZ is pretty T favored. TvP is pretty P favored, and PvZ is probably a bit P favored.
However, since Zerg is simply the easiest race to play, Zerg performs the best at a "foreign competitive" level. Thus he needs to adress the skill cap assymetry in the game before you can get proper balance.
|
On April 16 2016 04:58 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I guess the obvious answer is no. It seems balance at top tier korea is somewhat fine, so they will not change anything really Not sure I agree with that. I feel TvZ is pretty T favored. TvP is pretty P favored, and PvZ is probably a bit P favored. However, since Zerg is simply the easiest race to play, Zerg performs the best at a "foreign competitive" level. Thus he needs to adress the skill cap assymetry in the game before you can get proper balance.
I don't think this matches the general opinion of zerg race as far as the foreign scene goes. The general opinion seems to be that zerg is performing well. Ask non-zerg players.
|
Oh jesus they are bringing back the colo. I hope that doesn't happen.
|
On April 16 2016 04:33 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +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. That's really not true at all.
Well PvZ isn't problematic at the highest levels of played as Korea has shown time and time again the past month or two.
|
I'm still not going to play again until a balance change goes through
|
can you please fix the thing That makes protoss get free third while harass? terran cant move out:/
|
I mostly agree with all the changes they've mentioned. Where can I vote!? :p
Very happy about the new stance on leaving Liberator ground and Banshee's untouched. Good to see Liberator AA become more of a only vs light thing.
Also looking forward to see Colossi again. Hopefully they don't make disruptors disappear tho.
|
On April 16 2016 05:16 Dodgin wrote:
I'm still not going to play again until a balance change goes through
I wish there were an easier way for me to ... (was going to say "discover when Blizzard made a sensible change for Protoss' diversity.")
Hmm. I just thought about this:
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Patches
Now, I can actually just ignore the scene and come back when it looks like Protoss finally received some kind of design change. Until then, I guess it's just time to move on.
Just to put my 2 cents in here as well:
- Protoss open phoenix because of mutas, not because of ravagers / lings (voids / immos would be better versus ravagers, chargelots versus lings)
- A small change isn't going to increase Protoss diversity in PvZ. Phoenix into PICA will still be the only style, even if ravagers / drops get changed. A change to stalkers, mutas, or some other way to lessen the effect of mutas would be needed -- no matter how you slice it, that's going to be a large change.
- Don't buff the colossus. We didn't like it before, we still don't like it now.
With a nerfed Barrier and a buffed colossus Protoss gets even closer to HotS status: why do you think people would continue to play the race?
|
seeing how hopeless terran players are against top tier protoss like Zest and Dear I feel TvP is a bigger problem than pvz.
|
Hmm, give the colossus a speed buff and make it less sluggish and clunky. I want little colossi charging around the map harassing worker lines.
|
On April 16 2016 05:55 Charoisaur wrote:
seeing how hopeless terran players are against top tier protoss like Zest and Dear I feel TvP is a bigger problem than pvz.
Helpless? Could you give a link to matches?
|
I dont really get why realeses a "community" feedback every week when he obviously doesnt listen to the community at all.
|
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.
My attempt at summarizing what's going on in their mind. Because I'm having a hard time following their logic.
-> PvZ doing the roller coaster between 40-45% at pro level since launch
-> "TvP is the most pressing issue, let's nerf Adept and Photon Overcharge"
-> "err.. the numbers are still bad and Protoss is plummeting even more" (no shit)
-> "maybe maps are too 'diverse', let's dirty fix them and have even more 'diverse' maps next season" (???)
-> "maybe we should nerf Ravager and Overlord drop which are forcing Protoss to open Phoenix, it's totally unrelated to Mutas, we swear" (???)
-> "we hear voices in our mind from pros that PvZ is actually Protoss favored, maybe we should nerf Immortals" (???)
-> "nah maybe it's only an issue with newbies missing their Disruptor shots" (lol what?)
-> "maybe we should buff Collossi and Swarm host" (???)
I don't even... WTF Blizzard.
|
On April 16 2016 05:55 Charoisaur wrote:
seeing how hopeless terran players are against top tier protoss like Zest and Dear I feel TvP is a bigger problem than pvz.
What, Terran seems to be doing just fine in TvP. PvZ isn't even an issue except for early game or maps as shown at the highest levels in KR. The only issue in PvZ is that Phoenix is really the only good option other then silly two base all ins.
TvP seems fine, Zest is playing godlike right now and should come to no surprise that he destroyed Taeja, not due to balance. TvP doesn't seem bad from what I see, seems they both win half the time.
|
This pathetic nonsense, a pitiful mixture of excuses, doubts, uncertainties and justifications, every week is freaking glorious.
We think X may be broken, but we are not sure about that so may be we will put this on the testmap or may be not, we have not decided yet because korean pros think its not a good idea, so we'll do nothing and next week will continue pouring our doubts about some other random stuff being broken on you, or may be not, we are not so sure, we will go and ask some pros, may be they are some korean pros, noone knows for sure. We call this communication. Best regards, blizzard. p.s. gonna doublepost this on reddit.
|
|
|
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.
You do know that Widow mines and Turrets can stop a Oracles. While toss needs 3 stalkers to kill a lib while losing 2, or a cannon is out of range.
|
Colossi need a SMALL buff. Otherwise why even have them in the game? They need a role, but be careful not to make them ridiculous again
|
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.
Define "lower skill levels", is it everyone below Code S?
No its not a great suggestion, just like moving the Prion gold base to the natural was not a "genius suggestion".
The fact that anyone think that disruptor micro would be the problem to PvZ AND that buffing the collossi would help in any way is just beyond my comprehension.
|
Is ZvZ really that bad? To me it seems kinda the same as before, you just should never skip the baneling nest i guess?
|
Swarm hosts should go back to functioning how they were in hots but with a 25% increased cooldown, make players have to click "disperse locusts" imstead of it being automatic and also make the locust cost money. Like ear set of locust costs 5 minerals or something like that.
|
The section on PvZ diversity is pretty frustrating considering I wrote a whole post about the topic and their reply tells me they have no idea what they're talking about -.-. Nerfing ravagers and early drops to change diversity? what...the...fuck
|
On April 16 2016 06:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Is ZvZ really that bad? To me it seems kinda the same as before, you just should never skip the baneling nest i guess?
It's more of a coinflip because of overlord scouting. With more workers in LotV all ins come quicker, but you're overlords don't get across the map to scout any faster so it's harder to check for nats, gas counts, etc
|
On April 16 2016 05:55 Charoisaur wrote:
seeing how hopeless terran players are against top tier protoss like Zest and Dear I feel TvP is a bigger problem than pvz.
In this case they should nerf Zest, he's a monster.
|
On April 16 2016 06:49 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote:
Swarm hosts should go back to functioning how they were in hots but with a 25% increased cooldown, make players have to click "disperse locusts" imstead of it being automatic and also make the locust cost money. Like ear set of locust costs 5 minerals or something like that.
then they would be even more useless than they are now
|
On April 16 2016 06:34 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 05:55 Charoisaur wrote:
seeing how hopeless terran players are against top tier protoss like Zest and Dear I feel TvP is a bigger problem than pvz. What, Terran seems to be doing just fine in TvP. PvZ isn't even an issue except for early game or maps as shown at the highest levels in KR. The only issue in PvZ is that Phoenix is really the only good option other then silly two base all ins. TvP seems fine, Zest is playing godlike right now and should come to no surprise that he destroyed Taeja, not due to balance. TvP doesn't seem bad from what I see, seems they both win half the time.
you may be right but when watching Zest play it looks like there's nothing his opponents can do.
Like in his game vs TaeJa on dusk towers he just killed TaeJa who was massing units on 3 bases while being on 5 bases with 2 stargates and a fleet beacon on the way.
If it stays just Zest it's of course fine but if more players catch up to his level it could become problematic.
|
On April 16 2016 06:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Is ZvZ really that bad? To me it seems kinda the same as before, you just should never skip the baneling nest i guess?
no OL scouting, short rush distance with shitty gimmicky maps and 13/12 being much better than 9pool ever was all helped making ZvZ pretty random at high level
also metagame that allows "random" mutalisk switches I guess
|
On April 16 2016 07:00 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 06:34 blade55555 wrote:On April 16 2016 05:55 Charoisaur wrote:
seeing how hopeless terran players are against top tier protoss like Zest and Dear I feel TvP is a bigger problem than pvz. What, Terran seems to be doing just fine in TvP. PvZ isn't even an issue except for early game or maps as shown at the highest levels in KR. The only issue in PvZ is that Phoenix is really the only good option other then silly two base all ins. TvP seems fine, Zest is playing godlike right now and should come to no surprise that he destroyed Taeja, not due to balance. TvP doesn't seem bad from what I see, seems they both win half the time. you may be right but when watching Zest play it looks like there's nothing his opponents can do. Like in his game vs TaeJa on dusk towers he just killed TaeJa who was massing units on 3 bases while being on 5 bases with 2 stargates and a fleet beacon on the way. If it stays just Zest it's of course fine but if more players catch up to his level it could become problematic.
In that game Zest exploited a very very narrow timing where Taeja had a good number of tech units but not enough buffer under them to not be overrrun by a massive low tech units push. It was quite beautiful execution, an absolutely flawless game (and I do hate protoss with all my heart :p).
|
|
|
On April 16 2016 07:00 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 06:34 blade55555 wrote:On April 16 2016 05:55 Charoisaur wrote:
seeing how hopeless terran players are against top tier protoss like Zest and Dear I feel TvP is a bigger problem than pvz. What, Terran seems to be doing just fine in TvP. PvZ isn't even an issue except for early game or maps as shown at the highest levels in KR. The only issue in PvZ is that Phoenix is really the only good option other then silly two base all ins. TvP seems fine, Zest is playing godlike right now and should come to no surprise that he destroyed Taeja, not due to balance. TvP doesn't seem bad from what I see, seems they both win half the time. you may be right but when watching Zest play it looks like there's nothing his opponents can do. Like in his game vs TaeJa on dusk towers he just killed TaeJa who was massing units on 3 bases while being on 5 bases with 2 stargates and a fleet beacon on the way. If it stays just Zest it's of course fine but if more players catch up to his level it could become problematic.
To me Zest crushing Terrans left and right right now does not look very different from Maru crushing Protoss at the end of Hots. They are just in the zone currently. Blame the players, not the race. At least not yet.
|
On April 16 2016 06:34 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 05:55 Charoisaur wrote:
seeing how hopeless terran players are against top tier protoss like Zest and Dear I feel TvP is a bigger problem than pvz. What, Terran seems to be doing just fine in TvP. PvZ isn't even an issue except for early game or maps as shown at the highest levels in KR. The only issue in PvZ is that Phoenix is really the only good option other then silly two base all ins. TvP seems fine, Zest is playing godlike right now and should come to no surprise that he destroyed Taeja, not due to balance. TvP doesn't seem bad from what I see, seems they both win half the time.
I kind of agree on the TvP part. It seems to me like if Protoss get's the upper hand in the early or mid game, they usually steam roll in the end. I would consider it light current ZvP, balanced with a slight edge to Zerg. Terran just has to be very on top of it, let's face it, Terran end game a little harder to manage then Protoss, stimming and splitting is mandatory and chargelots form a concave on their own..
And Protoss is super balanced in the mid and late game against Zerg, the early game stuff Zerg can pull are tough but not imba, 45% is considered in the realm of balanced. If anyone remembers, Zerg was always slightly favored vs. Protoss in BW with maps playing a crucial role in the match up, this map pool sucks, like really bad. Better maps will go such a long way to helping Protoss for Zerg it's absurd.
The Disruptor needs a buff, not the damn Colossus, leave that unit untouched and in the corner with the other cancer units (Raven..Host..)
|
On April 16 2016 07:07 PPN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 07:00 Charoisaur wrote:On April 16 2016 06:34 blade55555 wrote:On April 16 2016 05:55 Charoisaur wrote:
seeing how hopeless terran players are against top tier protoss like Zest and Dear I feel TvP is a bigger problem than pvz. What, Terran seems to be doing just fine in TvP. PvZ isn't even an issue except for early game or maps as shown at the highest levels in KR. The only issue in PvZ is that Phoenix is really the only good option other then silly two base all ins. TvP seems fine, Zest is playing godlike right now and should come to no surprise that he destroyed Taeja, not due to balance. TvP doesn't seem bad from what I see, seems they both win half the time. you may be right but when watching Zest play it looks like there's nothing his opponents can do. Like in his game vs TaeJa on dusk towers he just killed TaeJa who was massing units on 3 bases while being on 5 bases with 2 stargates and a fleet beacon on the way. If it stays just Zest it's of course fine but if more players catch up to his level it could become problematic. To me Zest crushing Terrans left and right right now does not look very different from Maru crushing Protoss at the end of Hots. They are just in the zone currently. Blame the players, not the race. At least not yet.
Maru didn't win every pvt. herO, PartinG, Rain etc could still regularly beat him.
|
On April 16 2016 07:17 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 07:07 PPN wrote:On April 16 2016 07:00 Charoisaur wrote:On April 16 2016 06:34 blade55555 wrote:On April 16 2016 05:55 Charoisaur wrote:
seeing how hopeless terran players are against top tier protoss like Zest and Dear I feel TvP is a bigger problem than pvz. What, Terran seems to be doing just fine in TvP. PvZ isn't even an issue except for early game or maps as shown at the highest levels in KR. The only issue in PvZ is that Phoenix is really the only good option other then silly two base all ins. TvP seems fine, Zest is playing godlike right now and should come to no surprise that he destroyed Taeja, not due to balance. TvP doesn't seem bad from what I see, seems they both win half the time. you may be right but when watching Zest play it looks like there's nothing his opponents can do. Like in his game vs TaeJa on dusk towers he just killed TaeJa who was massing units on 3 bases while being on 5 bases with 2 stargates and a fleet beacon on the way. If it stays just Zest it's of course fine but if more players catch up to his level it could become problematic. To me Zest crushing Terrans left and right right now does not look very different from Maru crushing Protoss at the end of Hots. They are just in the zone currently. Blame the players, not the race. At least not yet. Maru didn't win every pvt. herO, PartinG, Rain etc could still regularly beat him.
Zest lost one PvT this year as well.... 
On April 16 2016 06:54 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 06:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Is ZvZ really that bad? To me it seems kinda the same as before, you just should never skip the baneling nest i guess? It's more of a coinflip because of overlord scouting. With more workers in LotV all ins come quicker, but you're overlords don't get across the map to scout any faster so it's harder to check for nats, gas counts, etc
On April 16 2016 07:02 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 06:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Is ZvZ really that bad? To me it seems kinda the same as before, you just should never skip the baneling nest i guess? no OL scouting, short rush distance with shitty gimmicky maps and 13/12 being much better than 9pool ever was all helped making ZvZ pretty random at high level also metagame that allows "random" mutalisk switches I guess
Sure i get the no OL part, but if you build the baneling nest as soon as you have the gas you should be fine? Maybe?
Not a lot of experience with 13/12 though, it looked quite strong but should be holdable with gas, pool, hatch?
I mean if you try to cut every corner possible i can see why you would call it coinflippy, at the same time i don't know all the timings and it's more a gut feeling so who knows ^^
|
On April 16 2016 07:00 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 06:34 blade55555 wrote:On April 16 2016 05:55 Charoisaur wrote:
seeing how hopeless terran players are against top tier protoss like Zest and Dear I feel TvP is a bigger problem than pvz. What, Terran seems to be doing just fine in TvP. PvZ isn't even an issue except for early game or maps as shown at the highest levels in KR. The only issue in PvZ is that Phoenix is really the only good option other then silly two base all ins. TvP seems fine, Zest is playing godlike right now and should come to no surprise that he destroyed Taeja, not due to balance. TvP doesn't seem bad from what I see, seems they both win half the time. you may be right but when watching Zest play it looks like there's nothing his opponents can do. Like in his game vs TaeJa on dusk towers he just killed TaeJa who was massing units on 3 bases while being on 5 bases with 2 stargates and a fleet beacon on the way. If it stays just Zest it's of course fine but if more players catch up to his level it could become problematic.
It's a bit hard to tell because we have so few TvP games from the best Terrans at the moment. The Korean statistics at the moment are all very hard to interprete, because the qualifiers for SSL and GSL happened way before everyone had caught on to the new expansion. Zest and Dear seem to be the only former Starleague contenders/champions that didn't drop out in the early stages of the tournaments. Maybe I'm totally wrong on that, but I don't see either Dark, nor Solar, nor Ty as the next superstars of T an Z. (especially zerg seems to be in dires in Korea, with Life gone their biggest stars are the silversurfers ByuL and soO)
But yeah, from the few games we have seen lately I would definitely give a not so small advantage to Protoss in TvP. Even mediocre Protoss players seem to be quite a challenge to the best Terrans, while Zest and Dear are marching through Terran opponent's whether they play a good or bad game.
|
On April 16 2016 07:17 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 07:07 PPN wrote:On April 16 2016 07:00 Charoisaur wrote:On April 16 2016 06:34 blade55555 wrote:On April 16 2016 05:55 Charoisaur wrote:
seeing how hopeless terran players are against top tier protoss like Zest and Dear I feel TvP is a bigger problem than pvz. What, Terran seems to be doing just fine in TvP. PvZ isn't even an issue except for early game or maps as shown at the highest levels in KR. The only issue in PvZ is that Phoenix is really the only good option other then silly two base all ins. TvP seems fine, Zest is playing godlike right now and should come to no surprise that he destroyed Taeja, not due to balance. TvP doesn't seem bad from what I see, seems they both win half the time. you may be right but when watching Zest play it looks like there's nothing his opponents can do. Like in his game vs TaeJa on dusk towers he just killed TaeJa who was massing units on 3 bases while being on 5 bases with 2 stargates and a fleet beacon on the way. If it stays just Zest it's of course fine but if more players catch up to his level it could become problematic. To me Zest crushing Terrans left and right right now does not look very different from Maru crushing Protoss at the end of Hots. They are just in the zone currently. Blame the players, not the race. At least not yet. Maru didn't win every pvt. herO, PartinG, Rain etc could still regularly beat him.
PartinG had a similar PvT winrate at the start of 2015 and made the matchup look quite disgusting, too. He won games against Code S level Terrans with 2 stalkers and a mothership core.
Point being, when your execution is good enough, you'll make the game look unfair.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
It's quite hard to judge based on korean games because of low sample size and different map pools. Many of the games are played in bo3 and bo5 series with vetos, so you get situations like matchups having 90% of their games played on only 2-3 maps, one of which isn't in the ladder/WCS pool. That tilts balance.
Playing PvZ in a bo5 with GSL pool and vetos is more in protoss favor than playing a straight best of 7 across every ladder/WCS map, for example.
|
Both Swarm Hosts and Colossi should see some kind of buffs in my opinion. Don't really understand the reason behind people whining about them when the game has changed a lot and is a lot more fast paced than before. Swarm Hosts have already been changed, if Colossi are bad for the game then they should redesign or tweak them a little, let them function a bit differently than in previous expansions.
I am totally fine with having situational units in the game that are not good at every stage of the game or on every map, but having units that are useless because you have others that just do the same thing much better is not good at all.
|
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 the solution neither (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.
|
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 the solution neither (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.
Or you just have some flying units or ravagers in place and kill them immidiately.
|
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.
|
On April 16 2016 08:14 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On April 16 2016 08:33 armazingerz1 wrote:Show nested quote +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
No you don't have to. You can deal with them by ground. But yeah, you can build the air units and that's totally fine. You know, I also have to make marines because of pretty much ever Protoss and zerg unit in the game. You force me into making 5+ barracks, stim, combat shields, bio upgrades, medivacs, just because you make Protoss or Zerg units. THAT is an investment, not to make one phoenix after a standard oracle opening.
|
On April 16 2016 08:33 armazingerz1 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 16 2016 08:47 PinoKotsBeer wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 16 2016 08:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +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 No you don't have to. You can deal with them by ground. But yeah, you can build the air units and that's totally fine. You know, I also have to make marines because of pretty much ever Protoss and zerg unit in the game. You force me into making 5+ barracks, stim, combat shields, bio upgrades, medivacs, just because you make Protoss or Zerg units. THAT is an investment, not to make one phoenix after a standard oracle opening.
Yeah, and P has to make adepts and Z has to make roaches for the core of their armies, and upgrade them, very smart comparision.
By the way, glad you bring the oracle. You can stop an oracle with ONE single turret.
|
On April 16 2016 08:51 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Not a valid point at all, its sc2, you have to make things to counter certain units. Liberator, ultralisk, tempests, whatever, sometimes you have to adjust your build and create other type of units to stay safe.
I do not imply liberators are fine, thats something you come up with out of the blue. Yes i play terran, but i would like to see them toned tone a bit. In fact, its sad that terran is forced to make liberators every game because the rest isnt great, think of the thor, cyclone and so many other units that doesnt have a good synergy (many reasons).
On April 16 2016 armazingerz1 wrote:
Yeah, and P has to make adepts and Z has to make roaches for the core of their armies, and upgrade them, very smart comparision.
By the way, glad you bring the oracle. You can stop an oracle with ONE single turret.
A player above silver can still do damage with the oracle by picking off units that are outside the turret range.
Also scouting purpose, stasis wards (a spell that doesnt expire: LOLOLOL)
etc. etc.
|
I am not sure about liberator's range cause once korean has figured out stalker/adept/disruptor style.
They execute this army comp better than any foreigner even they invented it first
So small change like map change to eliminate dead space is enough IMO.
|
On April 16 2016 09:03 PinoKotsBeer wrote:Show nested quote +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. Not a valid point at all, its sc2, you have to make things to counter certain units. Liberator, ultralisk, tempests, whatever, sometimes you have to adjust your build and create other type of units to stay safe. I do not imply liberators are fine, thats something you come up with out of the blue. Yes i play terran, but i would like to see them toned tone a bit. In fact, its sad that terran is forced to make liberators every game because the rest isnt great, think of the thor, cyclone and so many other units that doesnt have a good synergy (many reasons).
Agreed with you, but the synergy problem also affects to many P units. Of course it's SC and you have to counter enemy units, but it has to be reasonable. Imagine that the only requirement for DTs would be the Cybernetics Core, and other players tell you "easy, make Ravens and turrets on every game", would you find it reasonable? And you would have to, because you will probably face them on every game, why woulnd't a P make at least one of them? It would cost him just 125/125, and if he couldn't harass he could make an Archon. The liberator, this particular "DT", has a range of 14 and flies.
|
On April 16 2016 09:19 armazingerz1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 09:03 PinoKotsBeer 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. Not a valid point at all, its sc2, you have to make things to counter certain units. Liberator, ultralisk, tempests, whatever, sometimes you have to adjust your build and create other type of units to stay safe. I do not imply liberators are fine, thats something you come up with out of the blue. Yes i play terran, but i would like to see them toned tone a bit. In fact, its sad that terran is forced to make liberators every game because the rest isnt great, think of the thor, cyclone and so many other units that doesnt have a good synergy (many reasons). Agreed with you, but the synergy problem also affects to many P units. Of course it's SC and you have to counter enemy units, but it has to be reasonable. Imagine that the only requirement for DTs would be the Cybernetics Core, and other players tell you "easy, make Ravens and turrets on every game", would you find it reasonable? And you would have to, because you will probably face them on every game, why woulnd't a P make at least one of them? It would cost him just 125/125, and if he couldn't harass he could make an Archon. The liberator, this particular "DT", has a range of 14.
Seriously ? You reach that stage of the game and still don't have any air unit for liberator ?
Talk about terran's harrass.I do think late game harrass option for terran is necessary and more bullshit than other race.
Because terran can't instant 40 gates warpin like LOTV trailer,so we must give terran's late game power in elsewhere.To counter the ability to remax of other race.
I also think if you win late game not because straight fight but because other stuff.
The game would be more unique.It's just like abiter come in your base and shitting on it and you die
Late game strength of a race doesnt need to focus in straight up engage.
|
On April 16 2016 09:27 seemsgood wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 09:19 armazingerz1 wrote:On April 16 2016 09:03 PinoKotsBeer 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. Not a valid point at all, its sc2, you have to make things to counter certain units. Liberator, ultralisk, tempests, whatever, sometimes you have to adjust your build and create other type of units to stay safe. I do not imply liberators are fine, thats something you come up with out of the blue. Yes i play terran, but i would like to see them toned tone a bit. In fact, its sad that terran is forced to make liberators every game because the rest isnt great, think of the thor, cyclone and so many other units that doesnt have a good synergy (many reasons). Agreed with you, but the synergy problem also affects to many P units. Of course it's SC and you have to counter enemy units, but it has to be reasonable. Imagine that the only requirement for DTs would be the Cybernetics Core, and other players tell you "easy, make Ravens and turrets on every game", would you find it reasonable? And you would have to, because you will probably face them on every game, why woulnd't a P make at least one of them? It would cost him just 125/125, and if he couldn't harass he could make an Archon. The liberator, this particular "DT", has a range of 14. Seriously ? You reach that stage of the game and still don't have any air unit for liberator ? Talk about terran's harrass.I do think late game harrass option for terran is necessary and more bullshit than other race. Because terran can't instant 40 gates warpin like LOTV trailer,so we must give terran's late game power in elsewhere.To counter the ability to remax of other race. I also think if you win late game not because straight fight but because other stuff. The game would be more unique.It's just like abiter come in your base and shitting on it and you die Late game strength of a race doesnt need to focus in straight up engage.
There can be liberators by min 4
|
Blizzard needs to watch more games of Broodwar.
|
On April 16 2016 09:46 armazingerz1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 09:27 seemsgood wrote:On April 16 2016 09:19 armazingerz1 wrote:On April 16 2016 09:03 PinoKotsBeer 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. Not a valid point at all, its sc2, you have to make things to counter certain units. Liberator, ultralisk, tempests, whatever, sometimes you have to adjust your build and create other type of units to stay safe. I do not imply liberators are fine, thats something you come up with out of the blue. Yes i play terran, but i would like to see them toned tone a bit. In fact, its sad that terran is forced to make liberators every game because the rest isnt great, think of the thor, cyclone and so many other units that doesnt have a good synergy (many reasons). Agreed with you, but the synergy problem also affects to many P units. Of course it's SC and you have to counter enemy units, but it has to be reasonable. Imagine that the only requirement for DTs would be the Cybernetics Core, and other players tell you "easy, make Ravens and turrets on every game", would you find it reasonable? And you would have to, because you will probably face them on every game, why woulnd't a P make at least one of them? It would cost him just 125/125, and if he couldn't harass he could make an Archon. The liberator, this particular "DT", has a range of 14. Seriously ? You reach that stage of the game and still don't have any air unit for liberator ? Talk about terran's harrass.I do think late game harrass option for terran is necessary and more bullshit than other race. Because terran can't instant 40 gates warpin like LOTV trailer,so we must give terran's late game power in elsewhere.To counter the ability to remax of other race. I also think if you win late game not because straight fight but because other stuff. The game would be more unique.It's just like abiter come in your base and shitting on it and you die Late game strength of a race doesnt need to focus in straight up engage. There can be liberators by min 4
Then you need another respond to counter enemy's build.Early game is all about build order i think.Go watch trap vs taeja to see how he handle liberator range rush.
My point is just don't completely kill it cause build order diversity is good for this game.As long as you have a build order to counter or reduce the damage.
|
On April 16 2016 03:27 TheoMikkelsen wrote:
While the idea of changing the Immortal Barrier to less cooldown and less damage absorbed does sound cool enough, the intention does seem to be based around an overall nerf and that really troubles me.
To me the immortal right now is the most fundamentally core unit Protoss has right now against all races as it really serves a key role against a variety of units in all matchups that otherwise could be hard to replace.
I agree with the Balance Update that the goal should be to have the smallest/most efficient impact on the game to specifically isolate and target a problem in the specific matchup, I would like to propose an alternative to nerfing the Immortal as the following suggestion would largely only target the specific issue:
- Increase Corrupter +massive damage.
This change will allow Zerg to play the same and other strategies as now, but with a better ability to transition to Brood Lords. Brood Lords are great at helping with attacks against Immortals, but due to the fact that Protoss can tech to Tempest, Zerg tends to lack proper DPS versus Tempests. By allowing a better synergy between Brood Lord and Corrupter, we can actually see Zerg transition beyond their midgame aggression and into a Corrupter-based composition when facing Tempests.
The effect of the change will be very small with almost no impcat on ZvT and ZvZ but will definitely help Zerg in lategame PvZ.
There are other possibilities like buffing abduct range or parasitic bomb +massive damage, but I believe this is the most solid I have seen/heard so far that exactly lives up to the design philosophy stated in the Balance Update.
With that being said, I like the idea of making Liberator a +light oriented unit with Thor being a +armored AA unit.
Making Overlord speed a requirement for Overlord transport seems to be the perfect solution for a possible change on that area assuming we still believe there are issues even with the new maps and map changes.
This sounds Solid to me. I'd really like to see this in a balance test map. Would be nice to see the Thor have a roll again. Hell I wish all the units were viable. BC's are just....
|
"I’m sure many of you remember the situation we had in HotS where ZvZ games came down to whoever has more Mutalisks was the winner. If we look first for buffs instead of seeking for the “smallest possible changes”, we could buff units that are good vs. Mutalisks that weren’t used such as Hydralisks or Infestors. However, either of these changes would have been such huge changes in other matchups that were not problematic at the time (infestors were used vs. Terran and Roach/Hydralisk pushes were common in PvZ). We also think that a nerf to Mutalisk would be just as bad, because Mutalisks were also used often in other matchups. In this specific case, we found a small change that happened to be a buff, and we went with the Spore Crawler +bio damage change so that there was no impact in TvZ and PvZ."
Actually this was the worst bandaid of sc2 history please don't count this as a good example. Don't be afraid or lazy, just buff the "actual" counterplays and adjust all unit chain affected by it. Pushing balance over one little detail brings bad design and remains for a long time.
By the way i hope they realize that immortals are mathematically overpowered. They simply have too powerful stats for their price.
|
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.
|
On April 16 2016 03:01 blade55555 wrote:
The most disappointing thing for me in this was buffing colossi. They buff that so it's "easier" for lower level players lol... Game will be back to boring seeing colossi every game with their A move. They were going in such a good direction to if they do go this route.
I was really, really, scared when I read that.
|
So no banshee buff now arbitrarily after saying they'd buff it?
So basically, blizzard keeps announcing they'll change something with the game, then announce after that they are thinking about what to do with the change, then announce they'll do a map, then they announce they actually won't bother testing/patching the game and they will do a different change...
-> rinse repeat that cycle and they don't ever actually do any patch changes to SC2.
And people wonder why a lot of the SC2 community is mad/fed up with blizzard's non-patching of this game.
I just want to add an anecdote from my stream today about why people are leaving this game (and yes they are, it's the reality of the developers not listening to people in the community):
I was coaching a player live on stream today, he was playing a TvZ game. As the game was continuing to a certain point he had a maxed army of mech and libs and his opponent had a maxed army of corruptor viper etc.
His opponent clicked on 7 liberators with parasitic bomb and my student and myself are just basically in disbelief that there's no counter play or anything you can do to stop this thing - it just happens and you lose.
I told my student outright "i can't really give you advice on this one, there's no counterplay available, you just basically lose the units if you don't somehow EMP every single viper before the fight starts."
My student was in gold/plat/diamond. Imagine the amount of games on ladder right now where similar things are happening with invincible nydus worms being spawned in a player's base and they are autolosing because it's untargettable. Do you guys really think people will want to play the game much longer?
How much longer are these things with SC2 going to be ignored and not patched? It's ludicrous that our entire community is not up in arms over gimmicky bullshit like invincible nydus, adept/warp prism, mass liberator, para bomb, 8 armor ultra still remaining in this game.
Casters can say as much as they want "this is so fun to watch SC2 is the best game evar!" in their casts but the fact is it might be fun for them and some elitist SC2 players to watch, but for the people playing the game it's an entirely different F word - FRUSTRATING.
Please everyone urge the developers to do an entire sweep over all of the infuriating aspects currently in SC2 before they sit here and say they are patching while putting out empty words and doing no changes for MONTHS.
Things blizzard needs to do a balance sweep over:
-8 armor ultra
-marauder split attack revert
-collosus revert/buff
-parasitic bomb removal
-liberator nerf
-pylon cannon why is this in the game it's stupidity and worse than nexus cannon ever was
-all air units nerfed in supply to avoid mass air non-sense
-nydus worm reverted to HOTS, price reduced perhaps
-MECH VIABILITY every game currently is 100% bio + mass lib/ghost, needs to be addressed asap not years later
-adept/warp prism - needs nerfs on shade cooldown/warp prism pick-up range, infuriating to play against
-overall Protoss changes to design to make the race less infuriating to play against
-swarm hosts so useless pros and myself unbound the hotkey or kill any one we make by accident
-reaper grenades need to be removed from the game, it's just gimmicky all-in promotion, not skill
-tier 1 overlord drop this does not belong on tier 1, it just promotes coinflips and more all-ins
-cyclones being one of the most garbage units in the game, right behind swarmhosts
-a ton more i probably left out of the list that people can point out
Look at all of those issues - none addressed, blizzard not willing to patch them, or ignoring them. Meanwhile, we have announcements of announcements of possible changes, possible test maps, then announcements to announce they decided not to do anything, that they're buffing banshee speed arbitrarily, then not doing it now arbitrarily while ignoring all of the really bad things in the game =/
It's really disheartening. Speak up or forever hold your peace SC2 fans.
|
On April 16 2016 13:22 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 03:01 blade55555 wrote:
The most disappointing thing for me in this was buffing colossi. They buff that so it's "easier" for lower level players lol... Game will be back to boring seeing colossi every game with their A move. They were going in such a good direction to if they do go this route. I was really, really, scared when I read that.
I think buffing the Collosus in any way is just DKim's subtle way of saying "yeah we fucked up with the Disruptor".
The fact that this unit is so binary in its damage output already rendered it quasi-obsolete in PvZ and PvT, but Protoss still need some form of Splash to counter the other races. Unless Protoss goes for the PICA build in PvZ, or use something out of the "bag of bs" in PvT to equalize the army strenght in mid game, they are in dire need of splash.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
The fact that this unit is so binary in its damage output already rendered it quasi-obsolete in PvZ and PvT
No.. The 1.55x reduction in damage with +3 attack and enemies at +3 armor rendered it quasi-obsolete.
When a unit stands around and shoots at things, nuking its ability to do so without making it any more accessible or cheaper will make it only marginally useful. It's not rocket surgery!
|
On April 16 2016 13:24 avilo wrote:
-8 armor ultra
-marauder split attack revert
-collosus revert/buff
-parasitic bomb removal
-liberator nerf
-pylon cannon why is this in the game it's stupidity and worse than nexus cannon ever was
-all air units nerfed in supply to avoid mass air non-sense
-nydus worm reverted to HOTS, price reduced perhaps
-MECH VIABILITY every game currently is 100% bio + mass lib/ghost, needs to be addressed asap not years later
-adept/warp prism - needs nerfs on shade cooldown/warp prism pick-up range, infuriating to play against
-overall Protoss changes to design to make the race less infuriating to play against
-swarm hosts so useless pros and myself unbound the hotkey or kill any one we make by accident
-reaper grenades need to be removed from the game, it's just gimmicky all-in promotion, not skill
-tier 1 overlord drop this does not belong on tier 1, it just promotes coinflips and more all-ins
-cyclones being one of the most garbage units in the game, right behind swarmhosts
-a ton more i probably left out of the list that people can point out
this list is so spot on I wish avilo would be in charge of the balance team.
only things I slightly disagree with are collossus buff and pylon cannon nerf and maybe the marauder revert.
|
Avilo, maybe the existence of Parasistic Bomb is precisely what neutralizes stupid mass liberators play? (it is a real question, not a rhetorical one). Yeah, Mech must be somehow viable, and yeah Cyclones should have a role, as well as Thors, etc., and I agree it must change. But often times the way to nerf an overpowered unit when massed (otherwise being an interesting one) is to do some kind of mass damage to it to discourage building too many of them at some point of the game. I actually love this way of balancing, it think it's elegant.
Agree on making all unit useful or just remove them from the game (Colossus, SH, Cyclones, BCs), but I'm suspecting DK reserves them as an "emergency extra balancing option", and waits before the metagame stabilizes more before moving them towards a yet-to-be-discovered niche role. Kinda agree with it.
Just do not make Colossus an EZ option for casuals that pros won't ever use, game should not be dumbed down at lower levels. Plus, Colossus was very frustrating to play against back in gold/plat HotS because of it unidimensional aspect, and I believe it made more players quit the game than any of the current "issues" are.
|
What world are we living in where Avilos posts are super fucking legit and on point :p
|
Unfortunately people here are still completely out of touch with the game, parasitic bomb is not imbalance, nor does it have 0 counterplay - atm, good terran players win late game tvz if they get close to max on air armies/ghosts/etc, it's not even debatable. Furthermore, this also makes the "ultralisk imbalanced" posts obsolete, ultralisks get absolutely shit on by mass air too. Lastly, there are cyclones produced in a lot of terran games at the highest level, sure they might only make one or two, but it actually has a role and it's clearly good enough for that particular role for top level professionals to make them - comparing them to swarm hosts? Please, it's not even close.
Zerg definitely needs better anti air, buffing corruptors is a good way to do it, and nerfing liberators to be anti-light might help aswell (albeit the liberator change alone won't help in zvp, where air armies are literally unkillable atm). I also think it's absurd that certain terran players keep talking about bringing mech back, but then they also say that swarm hosts are awful and shouldn't be in the game - turtle mech and swarm hosts were exactly the same boring turtle playstyle, a playstyle that definitely ruined a lot of potentially great matches - no one sensible wants to watch 2 hour long games with 0 action.
|
Yes this is off topic, but please make an option for bigger chat text on bnet!
|
I really don't understand, why they would be thinking about finally not nerfing the liberator. This unit is declared imba by players from all skill levels (from Bronze to Masters to Dark during GSL) and is not fun to play against at all, since the denying of mining time forces you to build 3 early ravagers or to have 4 queens, and even so, even with this massive investment in defense, you still lose a ton of mining time. In the late game this unit still is hyper strong : 85 ground damage... hyper strong AA with AOE damage.
To sum up : we there have a unit which can be built without a possibility of scouting since there is no need for a tech lab (how do I know if I'm gonna get dropped hellions, dropped mines, have to face mass marines with medivacs or liberators), with an insane range and an insane amount of damage dealt, against ground and air, hyper strong in every phase of the game. That's buff material to me.
The immortal barrier is also, to a lesser degree, an abnormality to me : that's a huge buff from HOTS, like every pro will recognize it.
|
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?
|
On April 16 2016 19:27 JackONeill wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Professionals, especially the Koreans, seem to hate bigger/frequent patches. Parts of the community also side with them, so it's not such a universal wish as you make it out to be to begin with.
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.
|
On April 16 2016 17:49 Avi-Love wrote:
Unfortunately people here are still completely out of touch with the game, parasitic bomb is not imbalance, nor does it have 0 counterplay - atm, good terran players win late game tvz if they get close to max on air armies/ghosts/etc, it's not even debatable.
I think you missed avilo's point. The bulk of all players resides in Gold League or lower, these players are the foundation of this game.
These players can't split like Van Damme and EMP all the Vipers at the same time. They simply lose their complete airforce in 10 seconds. It is not only parasitic bomb, there are a lot of maneuvers in the game that simply end the game if your reaction is not super fast and crisp but on the other hand these maneuvers are not too hard to execute for your opponent.
These mechanics are the cause of frustrated players leaving the game.
A game can be designed such that pro players can distinguish themselves and at the same time the tiniest mistake in lower leagues does not cause the obliteration of the whole army you spent 20 minutes to build up. Unfortunately, SC2 is not such a game.
|
Austria24417 Posts
Much, much better stuff than last week. I'd like colossi to be useful in one way or another at least, rather than keep them in their current state.
One thing though: protoss don't open pheonix because of drops, they open phoenix because no other opening lives vs all ins while being economically strong enough.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On April 16 2016 19:43 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Problem is that just before beta they were still making a series of patch changes, but as soon as beta finished, they declared job done. It very much still feels like the game was released early with lots of odd abilities and units to sort out.
|
On April 16 2016 20:07 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
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.
And people wonder why some of us are cynical
|
I didn't exactly understand why buffs in general would help the game development more and better than nerfs. Is it cause they assume that users can deal with them better mentally?
|
On April 16 2016 13:24 avilo wrote:
So no banshee buff now arbitrarily after saying they'd buff it?
So basically, blizzard keeps announcing they'll change something with the game, then announce after that they are thinking about what to do with the change, then announce they'll do a map, then they announce they actually won't bother testing/patching the game and they will do a different change...
-> rinse repeat that cycle and they don't ever actually do any patch changes to SC2.
And people wonder why a lot of the SC2 community is mad/fed up with blizzard's non-patching of this game.
I just want to add an anecdote from my stream today about why people are leaving this game (and yes they are, it's the reality of the developers not listening to people in the community):
I was coaching a player live on stream today, he was playing a TvZ game. As the game was continuing to a certain point he had a maxed army of mech and libs and his opponent had a maxed army of corruptor viper etc.
His opponent clicked on 7 liberators with parasitic bomb and my student and myself are just basically in disbelief that there's no counter play or anything you can do to stop this thing - it just happens and you lose.
I told my student outright "i can't really give you advice on this one, there's no counterplay available, you just basically lose the units if you don't somehow EMP every single viper before the fight starts."
My student was in gold/plat/diamond. Imagine the amount of games on ladder right now where similar things are happening with invincible nydus worms being spawned in a player's base and they are autolosing because it's untargettable. Do you guys really think people will want to play the game much longer?
How much longer are these things with SC2 going to be ignored and not patched? It's ludicrous that our entire community is not up in arms over gimmicky bullshit like invincible nydus, adept/warp prism, mass liberator, para bomb, 8 armor ultra still remaining in this game.
Casters can say as much as they want "this is so fun to watch SC2 is the best game evar!" in their casts but the fact is it might be fun for them and some elitist SC2 players to watch, but for the people playing the game it's an entirely different F word - FRUSTRATING.
Please everyone urge the developers to do an entire sweep over all of the infuriating aspects currently in SC2 before they sit here and say they are patching while putting out empty words and doing no changes for MONTHS.
Things blizzard needs to do a balance sweep over:
-8 armor ultra
-marauder split attack revert
-collosus revert/buff
-parasitic bomb removal
-liberator nerf
-pylon cannon why is this in the game it's stupidity and worse than nexus cannon ever was
-all air units nerfed in supply to avoid mass air non-sense
-nydus worm reverted to HOTS, price reduced perhaps
-MECH VIABILITY every game currently is 100% bio + mass lib/ghost, needs to be addressed asap not years later
-adept/warp prism - needs nerfs on shade cooldown/warp prism pick-up range, infuriating to play against
-overall Protoss changes to design to make the race less infuriating to play against
-swarm hosts so useless pros and myself unbound the hotkey or kill any one we make by accident
-reaper grenades need to be removed from the game, it's just gimmicky all-in promotion, not skill
-tier 1 overlord drop this does not belong on tier 1, it just promotes coinflips and more all-ins
-cyclones being one of the most garbage units in the game, right behind swarmhosts
-a ton more i probably left out of the list that people can point out
Look at all of those issues - none addressed, blizzard not willing to patch them, or ignoring them. Meanwhile, we have announcements of announcements of possible changes, possible test maps, then announcements to announce they decided not to do anything, that they're buffing banshee speed arbitrarily, then not doing it now arbitrarily while ignoring all of the really bad things in the game =/
It's really disheartening. Speak up or forever hold your peace SC2 fans.
I agree 100%. Not sure if Blizzard is destroying their own game on purpose? But why would they do that? What they are doing right now does not really make sense.
The game has several severe problems far beyond balance. All of those problems are fixable, but it seems like Blizzard have no interest in fixing their own game?
Blizzard please focus on making the actual gameplay more varied and less frustrating. Then tweak balance.
Balance does not matter much if the gameplay is not fun.
And please prioritize fun to play over fun to watch.
|
On April 16 2016 17:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:
Yes this is off topic, but please make an option for bigger chat text on bnet!
Yes, please! Why is it so small? Why is there no option to make it bigger?
|
I really hope they take a look to the Swarm Host, the unit is never used.
|
And I thought this game was frustrating back when I stopped in HotS. I keep following the game with the feintest of hopes that some day, it might change and return to being the RTS I loved, only to read weekly community updates that make no logical sense. I feel for you.
|
On April 16 2016 03:55 Big J wrote:
Let's go through it step by step:
PvZ build order diversity
Protoss don't open phoenix because of drops and ravagers. If you specifically wanted to just defend those there are better options. But phoenixes are much more all-around, give protoss vital scouting, deter the zerg from mutalisk play to counter immortals, can do a bit of damage to drones, overlords and queens and most of all deter zerg from mutalisk play.
If you nerf drops or ravagers protoss will still play phoenixes.
Also, what about the other races? I want build order diversity in TvP too and not always open with a CC, a starport, a factory and 3 barracks. Same goes for TvZ and TvT... give me more openings than factory/starport/a few rax expansions.
Colossus buff
If you buff this unit it will be used on the prolevel too, in particular in TvP. If you want to buff the colossus for easier splash damage in lower leagues without affecting the prolevel, buff it a bit but nerf its mobility a bit.
Buffs over nerfs
Just do whatever is best. Don't choose a buff over a nerf just because it sells better to the community.
Immortal barrier change
Sounds like an interesting idea.
David Kim, hire this man.
|
On April 16 2016 08:51 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 17 2016 00:40 TronJovolta wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 17 2016 00:40 TronJovolta wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Everyone has their own opinion, I think tankivacs are stupid and a lot of other people do as well, actually when they where talking about removing it the opinions swinged around 50% for removing/not removing, so don't call people retards for doing something then proced to do the same thing in the very next line.
|
On April 17 2016 00:40 TronJovolta wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Did I say anywhere that I wasn't enjoying the game? Did I say anywhere that I'm speaking for everyone? Yea, didn't think so. All I was saying is that a few balance problems is making the former greatest match up in the game no longer what it used to be.
So you think the tank sucking at it's originally designed purpose and only being viable through a gimmick ability is the right direction? You think that the Ultralisk a moving through stimmed bio lines is a good move for the game? Okaaay...
Your entitled to your opinions, no matter how asinine they are lol..
|
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.
|
Instead of buffing colossus, Blizzard should:
- Reduce build time of carriers
- Increase armour of carriers so that marines don't laugh at them
Now, you may be able to use carriers in late PvT and maybe PvZ, too. It will be a good change because tempests are so bad in PvT, they're only made to counter liberators. Other than that, they're just awful.
|
protoss diversity over zerg? lol. how about zerg diversity over protoss...go ling, they go adept, go roach ravager, they go phoenix void/blink, go hydra, they go anything and win, go lurker, they go disruptor. only comp that does decent against toss is corruptor ling, if u survive that long #balance #nigga
User was warned for this post
|
On April 17 2016 00:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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 ?
|
Game color selection is game changer for me. I'm colorblind in a very specific way and none of the presets were satisfying me - I can't stand losing games because I'm not able to see something on the mini map and so stopped playing altogether.
But now... I'll be back on the ladder in no time
|
On April 16 2016 03:27 TheoMikkelsen wrote:
While the idea of changing the Immortal Barrier to less cooldown and less damage absorbed does sound cool enough, the intention does seem to be based around an overall nerf and that really troubles me.
To me the immortal right now is the most fundamentally core unit Protoss has right now against all races as it really serves a key role against a variety of units in all matchups that otherwise could be hard to replace.
It is about lategame. Mass immortals are too beefy. Lowering barrier but making cooldown shorter would solve that. I know its difficult to understand thats why i recommand everyone to think about what happens piece by piece, second by second.
In lategame you have more units. That means a single unit receives more damage (you try to snipe immortals). If you lower the barrier, the immortal will die before it can activate the next barrier.
In midgame you have less units. That means a single unit receives less damage. The immortal will survive long enough to activate the next barrier.
|
On April 16 2016 19:57 dust7 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 17:49 Avi-Love wrote:
Unfortunately people here are still completely out of touch with the game, parasitic bomb is not imbalance, nor does it have 0 counterplay - atm, good terran players win late game tvz if they get close to max on air armies/ghosts/etc, it's not even debatable. I think you missed avilo's point. The bulk of all players resides in Gold League or lower, these players are the foundation of this game. These players can't split like Van Damme and EMP all the Vipers at the same time. They simply lose their complete airforce in 10 seconds. It is not only parasitic bomb, there are a lot of maneuvers in the game that simply end the game if your reaction is not super fast and crisp but on the other hand these maneuvers are not too hard to execute for your opponent. These mechanics are the cause of frustrated players leaving the game. A game can be designed such that pro players can distinguish themselves and at the same time the tiniest mistake in lower leagues does not cause the obliteration of the whole army you spent 20 minutes to build up. Unfortunately, SC2 is not such a game.
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?
Let me answer the first question: Yes, you are right, gold players cant micro like maru, thus marin vs baneling has more randomness and is based more on luck. Engagements are decided more or less by luck because of mistakes or because of the absence of skill. How can we balance that? We would need to make the game slower, units would need less damage, be less rewarding. Overall reduction of game tasks.
Skill would matter less. Bw is a great game because i can beat an opponent with less, when i play smart. But a game that is balanced for gold players, doesnt offer that. It would be extremely difficult to get an edge in such a game.
Sc2 is not as skill based as bw and look what happened. We have more random champions. At some point skill doesnt matter because there is nothing you can do, that makes a difference. Its like a roach battle, where only numbers matter.
If the game is balanced at gold level. What will a proplayer do? People say you have an infinite amount of things to chose from, but they forget that not every action has the same weight. I can micro single roaches, but when my opponent has 3-5 roaches more, i will lose the fight. Micro is not always worth because the ai is so good at it. In bw units were dumb, if i microed my units, i could gain an edge.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
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 ?
I routinely play 1g - nexus - stargate against zerg and it comes too late to deter the scary attacks (including overlord drop). Am surprised to see this comment too.
|
DK is right about basic units having large impacts downstream, and that's why Protoss opens Stargate. Protoss cannot realistically contest ground control with Zerglings until they have a real army but Protoss needs to do some sort pressure to prevent the steamroll.
|
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.
|
On April 17 2016 22:56 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
Blizzard promised to keep patching regularly after release but so far we had only one single balance change in 6 months. It really seems like either these updates are just a farce to keep throwing around changes that won't get implemented anyway or they are just wasting their time with these tests. I feel like that if they aren't willing to make big design changes anymore then LOTV can only be viewed as a huge disappointment.
|
Quick question, what got changed in the past 3 MONTHS ? Answer: nothing.
So many community updates ... many countless balance test maps played ... and ?! nothing. Wasted time.
This game stopped evolving a long time ago. I'm so afraid that Blizzard is still supporting WCS and peer tournaments just to save face... (and the marginal income if there's any left)
|
On April 17 2016 14:03 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 04:15 Tresher wrote: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.
Maybe my words were a bit harsh. But please don´t misunderstand me. I think Greg Black is a great guy and yes he did a great job at balancing the game (Even with C&C 3). Just some decisions were questionable. I don´t hate him or the game (both RA 3 and SC 2).
Im just worried about SC 2 and its future. I don´t want it to suffer the same fate RA 3 had.
|
On April 18 2016 02:41 HomeWorld wrote:
Quick question, what got changed in the past 3 MONTHS ? Answer: nothing.
So many community updates ... many countless balance test maps played ... and ?! nothing. Wasted time.
This game stopped evolving a long time ago. I'm so afraid that Blizzard is still supporting WCS and peer tournaments just to save face... (and the marginal income if there's any left)
To be fair the meta evolved a lot in the meantime, so I can understand why they ended up changing nothing.
|
On April 18 2016 03:56 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 02:41 HomeWorld wrote:
Quick question, what got changed in the past 3 MONTHS ? Answer: nothing.
So many community updates ... many countless balance test maps played ... and ?! nothing. Wasted time.
This game stopped evolving a long time ago. I'm so afraid that Blizzard is still supporting WCS and peer tournaments just to save face... (and the marginal income if there's any left) To be fair the meta evolved a lot in the meantime, so I can understand why they ended up changing nothing.
So balance the game then. Stop look at the meta and balance the game instead? You dont think blizzard can do this?
|
On April 17 2016 23:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 18 2016 04:15 Nazara wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 18 2016 03:56 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 02:41 HomeWorld wrote:
Quick question, what got changed in the past 3 MONTHS ? Answer: nothing.
So many community updates ... many countless balance test maps played ... and ?! nothing. Wasted time.
This game stopped evolving a long time ago. I'm so afraid that Blizzard is still supporting WCS and peer tournaments just to save face... (and the marginal income if there's any left) To be fair the meta evolved a lot in the meantime, so I can understand why they ended up changing nothing.
So, lets say that 0.01 % of current SC2 player base (and I'm being way too generous on that estimation ) is doing "alright" (NOT TRUE) due to current "meta" shifts (which if we are to be honest,there wasn't much "shifting" since last installment), that would be the "pro" players, right? What about the rest?
Well, you see where this is going, and probably realize why this game has fallen into the deepest, darkest, hole of "no joy".
Nonetheless, the game is still fixable, but not how it's done currently (now and then, there's a guy or two who sporadically makes some mind boggling changes to random units and brag about it on battle net forum claiming BALANCE).
Admittedly, they got the PR part good, see the multitude of "community updates" or "calls for action" , just to instill the false sentiment that something is going on, that they care, when in reality nothing gets changed (excepting some QoL stuff that are trivial to implement)
|
On April 17 2016 12:33 Cyro wrote:It's similar all the way to the top of the ladder aside from GM being a bit more balanced out EU/NA stats have more zerg & less terran
Where are all the "protoss is easy" guys? I still think protoss' air is too in team games though.
|
On April 18 2016 06:16 Charoisaur wrote: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.
http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/races/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&l=-2
This would imply that low level players dislike Zerg, but like Protoss.
Unless you are a very, very good player, then Protoss is fun to play again.
Quite a big assumption imo.
If the race isn't fun to play, this may be because of two factors:
1. balance
2. how easy the race is
If Protoss is UP, then we would clearly see it in Pro level, or even Grandmaster level. However this is not the case, so the race must be harder to get into, and is harder to learn. That's why Protoss players don't advance as easily from Bronze as for example the Zerg, which are a minority in Bronze and Silver.
|
On April 16 2016 03:48 TT1 wrote:plz buff the colossus, id come back to sc2. old ppl like me get arthritis from microing disruptors
I am SO MUCH identified with this post...
|
On April 18 2016 07:57 Xamo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 03:48 TT1 wrote:plz buff the colossus, id come back to sc2. old ppl like me get arthritis from microing disruptors I am SO MUCH identified with this post...
ha ha same, I loved the colo, a-move power !
|
On April 18 2016 08:47 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 07:57 Xamo wrote:On April 16 2016 03:48 TT1 wrote:plz buff the colossus, id come back to sc2. old ppl like me get arthritis from microing disruptors I am SO MUCH identified with this post... ha ha same, I loved the colo, a-move power !
Maybe this is what protoss needs not to be the least played race but PvP was so stupid with colossi...
|
On April 18 2016 04:14 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 03:56 [PkF] Wire wrote:On April 18 2016 02:41 HomeWorld wrote:
Quick question, what got changed in the past 3 MONTHS ? Answer: nothing.
So many community updates ... many countless balance test maps played ... and ?! nothing. Wasted time.
This game stopped evolving a long time ago. I'm so afraid that Blizzard is still supporting WCS and peer tournaments just to save face... (and the marginal income if there's any left) To be fair the meta evolved a lot in the meantime, so I can understand why they ended up changing nothing. So balance the game then. Stop look at the meta and balance the game instead? You dont think blizzard can do this?
you can't balance something that's evolving. The dust has settled on double robo for P and it indeed seems strong, but Dark has shaken things quite a bit with his heavy baneling usage. I guess we can wait a bit more.
|
On April 18 2016 09:48 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 04:14 Foxxan wrote:On April 18 2016 03:56 [PkF] Wire wrote:On April 18 2016 02:41 HomeWorld wrote:
Quick question, what got changed in the past 3 MONTHS ? Answer: nothing.
So many community updates ... many countless balance test maps played ... and ?! nothing. Wasted time.
This game stopped evolving a long time ago. I'm so afraid that Blizzard is still supporting WCS and peer tournaments just to save face... (and the marginal income if there's any left) To be fair the meta evolved a lot in the meantime, so I can understand why they ended up changing nothing. So balance the game then. Stop look at the meta and balance the game instead? You dont think blizzard can do this? you can't balance something that's evolving. The dust has settled on double robo for P and it indeed seems strong, but Dark has shaken things quite a bit with his heavy baneling usage. I guess we can wait a bit more.
Why cant you balance the game instead of the meta? Because its evolving, i dont understand.
People get better tactical, strategical mechanical wise but why cant you balance the game instead of the meta?
|
On April 18 2016 10:19 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 09:48 [PkF] Wire wrote:On April 18 2016 04:14 Foxxan wrote:On April 18 2016 03:56 [PkF] Wire wrote:On April 18 2016 02:41 HomeWorld wrote:
Quick question, what got changed in the past 3 MONTHS ? Answer: nothing.
So many community updates ... many countless balance test maps played ... and ?! nothing. Wasted time.
This game stopped evolving a long time ago. I'm so afraid that Blizzard is still supporting WCS and peer tournaments just to save face... (and the marginal income if there's any left) To be fair the meta evolved a lot in the meantime, so I can understand why they ended up changing nothing. So balance the game then. Stop look at the meta and balance the game instead? You dont think blizzard can do this? you can't balance something that's evolving. The dust has settled on double robo for P and it indeed seems strong, but Dark has shaken things quite a bit with his heavy baneling usage. I guess we can wait a bit more. Why cant you balance the game instead of the meta? Because its evolving, i dont understand. People get better tactical, strategical mechanical wise but why cant you balance the game instead of the meta?
Your question doesn't make sense.
The meta is the game, it's just strong strategies for both sides. The meta evolves because everyone's always trying to get an edge. If Build A beats build B, build B is going to evolve to beat build A. This is the cycle.
Balance patches are for when build B is not evolving to beat build A. Look at broodlord infestor - Nothing ever rose up to beat it.
|
^
The highest level of strategy in many complex games, metagame refers to any aspect of strategy that involves thinking about what your opponent is thinking you are thinking.
Metagame comes into play in any game where no single strategy is dominant and opposing sides are aware of multiple strategies that can succeed dependent upon opponents' actions. In order to perform at the highest level, it then becomes necessary to think about what your opponent thinks you will do (which may depend on what he thinks you think he thinks he will do, etc.) and to make decisions based on clues regarding what level they are thinking on.
This term is most commonly used to refer to poker and other complex card games, but is increasingly being used in relation to video games with complicated player vs player elements and even traditional sports.
Thats the definition of meta. Maybe you and all others mean something else.
|
On April 18 2016 10:19 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 09:48 [PkF] Wire wrote:On April 18 2016 04:14 Foxxan wrote:On April 18 2016 03:56 [PkF] Wire wrote:On April 18 2016 02:41 HomeWorld wrote:
Quick question, what got changed in the past 3 MONTHS ? Answer: nothing.
So many community updates ... many countless balance test maps played ... and ?! nothing. Wasted time.
This game stopped evolving a long time ago. I'm so afraid that Blizzard is still supporting WCS and peer tournaments just to save face... (and the marginal income if there's any left) To be fair the meta evolved a lot in the meantime, so I can understand why they ended up changing nothing. So balance the game then. Stop look at the meta and balance the game instead? You dont think blizzard can do this? you can't balance something that's evolving. The dust has settled on double robo for P and it indeed seems strong, but Dark has shaken things quite a bit with his heavy baneling usage. I guess we can wait a bit more. Why cant you balance the game instead of the meta? Because its evolving, i dont understand. People get better tactical, strategical mechanical wise but why cant you balance the game instead of the meta?
Because balance decisions lie downstream of the Meta
In other words, the game is balanced first by players, then by blizzard.
The game-balance done by players is referred to as the 'meta' and it is accomplished as players hone their skills with particular units and abilities. The collective skillsets of all players generally define what is possible in any given starcraft match.
The game-balance done by Blizzard is the nerfs and buffs that come in response to anomalies in the meta. Conceptually, when it is determined that a particular race has some sort of unfair weakness or advantage in a particular aspect of the game, Blizzard makes the adjustments that they deem appropriate to address that case.
But, those perceptions can fluctuate quickly, because while Blizzard is testing and learning, so are players. Players can discover and unlock new ways to play the game that change the balance of the game. Imagine if Boxer never started using dropships, and no one really imagined using them tactically like they do today, but then Dream suddenly started doing it out of nowhere. It would completely change everything about the way the game is understood, and would upend whatever conversations Blizzard had been having at the time.
Of course, Starcraft is much too mature for anything that extreme to come along, but the same process still takes place with these finer details. It is mostly the players that are unbalanced. Players are extremely innovative and learn quickly.
I'm quite happy that Blizzard is cautious about changing things and isn't interfering too quickly or overreacting to seemingly problematic aspects of the game. It's a lot more fun to watch the players themselves invent new ways to exploit units and spells and then win games until someone else figures out how to take them down. Right now, I think LOTV is too young and players aren't quite good enough at it yet to really come to any strict balance conclusions, except when there are glaring issues like the mass adept right after release.
|
On April 17 2016 21:41 todespolka wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 19:57 dust7 wrote:On April 16 2016 17:49 Avi-Love wrote:
Unfortunately people here are still completely out of touch with the game, parasitic bomb is not imbalance, nor does it have 0 counterplay - atm, good terran players win late game tvz if they get close to max on air armies/ghosts/etc, it's not even debatable. I think you missed avilo's point. The bulk of all players resides in Gold League or lower, these players are the foundation of this game. These players can't split like Van Damme and EMP all the Vipers at the same time. They simply lose their complete airforce in 10 seconds. It is not only parasitic bomb, there are a lot of maneuvers in the game that simply end the game if your reaction is not super fast and crisp but on the other hand these maneuvers are not too hard to execute for your opponent. These mechanics are the cause of frustrated players leaving the game. A game can be designed such that pro players can distinguish themselves and at the same time the tiniest mistake in lower leagues does not cause the obliteration of the whole army you spent 20 minutes to build up. Unfortunately, SC2 is not such a game. 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? Let me answer the first question: Yes, you are right, gold players cant micro like maru, thus marin vs baneling has more randomness and is based more on luck. Engagements are decided more or less by luck because of mistakes or because of the absence of skill. How can we balance that? We would need to make the game slower, units would need less damage, be less rewarding. Overall reduction of game tasks. Skill would matter less. Bw is a great game because i can beat an opponent with less, when i play smart. But a game that is balanced for gold players, doesnt offer that. It would be extremely difficult to get an edge in such a game. Sc2 is not as skill based as bw and look what happened. We have more random champions. At some point skill doesnt matter because there is nothing you can do, that makes a difference. Its like a roach battle, where only numbers matter. If the game is balanced at gold level. What will a proplayer do? People say you have an infinite amount of things to chose from, but they forget that not every action has the same weight. I can micro single roaches, but when my opponent has 3-5 roaches more, i will lose the fight. Micro is not always worth because the ai is so good at it. In bw units were dumb, if i microed my units, i could gain an edge.
Please note that I did not say the game should be balanced for gold level. In fact, the word balance did not even come up in my post. All I claimed was that
A game can be designed such that pro players can distinguish themselves and at the same time the tiniest mistake in lower leagues does not cause the obliteration of the whole army you spent 20 minutes to build up.
which has nothing to do with balance, at any level.
|
Make the Colossus great again!
|
1. Does Blizzard read TL?
2. Trying to shoot down Disruptor Purification Nova would be fun.
|
On April 18 2016 14:12 ZerglingSoup wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 10:19 Foxxan wrote:On April 18 2016 09:48 [PkF] Wire wrote:On April 18 2016 04:14 Foxxan wrote:On April 18 2016 03:56 [PkF] Wire wrote:On April 18 2016 02:41 HomeWorld wrote:
Quick question, what got changed in the past 3 MONTHS ? Answer: nothing.
So many community updates ... many countless balance test maps played ... and ?! nothing. Wasted time.
This game stopped evolving a long time ago. I'm so afraid that Blizzard is still supporting WCS and peer tournaments just to save face... (and the marginal income if there's any left) To be fair the meta evolved a lot in the meantime, so I can understand why they ended up changing nothing. So balance the game then. Stop look at the meta and balance the game instead? You dont think blizzard can do this? you can't balance something that's evolving. The dust has settled on double robo for P and it indeed seems strong, but Dark has shaken things quite a bit with his heavy baneling usage. I guess we can wait a bit more. Why cant you balance the game instead of the meta? Because its evolving, i dont understand. People get better tactical, strategical mechanical wise but why cant you balance the game instead of the meta? Because balance decisions lie downstream of the Meta In other words, the game is balanced first by players, then by blizzard. The game-balance done by players is referred to as the 'meta' and it is accomplished as players hone their skills with particular units and abilities. The collective skillsets of all players generally define what is possible in any given starcraft match. The game-balance done by Blizzard is the nerfs and buffs that come in response to anomalies in the meta. Conceptually, when it is determined that a particular race has some sort of unfair weakness or advantage in a particular aspect of the game, Blizzard makes the adjustments that they deem appropriate to address that case. But, those perceptions can fluctuate quickly, because while Blizzard is testing and learning, so are players. Players can discover and unlock new ways to play the game that change the balance of the game. Imagine if Boxer never started using dropships, and no one really imagined using them tactically like they do today, but then Dream suddenly started doing it out of nowhere. It would completely change everything about the way the game is understood, and would upend whatever conversations Blizzard had been having at the time. Of course, Starcraft is much too mature for anything that extreme to come along, but the same process still takes place with these finer details. It is mostly the players that are unbalanced. Players are extremely innovative and learn quickly. I'm quite happy that Blizzard is cautious about changing things and isn't interfering too quickly or overreacting to seemingly problematic aspects of the game. It's a lot more fun to watch the players themselves invent new ways to exploit units and spells and then win games until someone else figures out how to take them down. Right now, I think LOTV is too young and players aren't quite good enough at it yet to really come to any strict balance conclusions, except when there are glaring issues like the mass adept right after release.
What is meta to you? Is it the description i did above or is it something else?
If it is the description i did above, then if you balance the meta that means the game is never truly balanced.
If you want to succeed in getting a truly balanced game or as balanced as possible, it would be blizzards job to try and balance the game instead.
If boxer didnt use dropships back then but some terran 10years after in broodwar did. The meta would change dramatically.
Now, as a company, its their job to really try and think of all possibilities if they want to attain balance. What if a company forsee dropships way back then, made balance changes no one understood but 10years later everyone said "ohh alright i get it now".
Thats dull to me, someone comes up with some creative strategy just to have it nerfed later on.
Wouldnt it be awesome if companies tried 10x harder to not care about the meta but instead of the game, then we wouldnt get situations like that.
|
I feel like even though the way people play the game has been changing drastically, and affecting balance significantly, it is still no excuse for nothing being changed in around 3 months. Sure if you give the players enough time they will learn to play around the bad design, but that doesn't mean that the game is well designed. The more you are forced to bend your playstyle around bad balancing decisions the less fun it is.
I don't wan't to have to open something like 3-rax reaper every TvT or be inevitably behind. Sure, if you force the players to play like this, they will have too much commitment to StarCraft to stop playing the game and they will adapt to this and make the game "balanced", but they will enjoy it less. A day will come when they will have had enough and they will switch to other games that are more worth their time.
There are so many thing in the game that are so ridiculous and need blizzard's immediate attention. Things like the new armor ultras, parasitic bomb, liberators, new Protoss immortal shield, pylon overcharge, mass air for all races, lack of mech anti-air, ravagers, invincible nydus, tankevacs (A siege unit that can quickly re position... literally defeats the purpose of the unit...) . There's so many areas that, while technically are ALL OP and can be balanced since all races can use them, force a specific meta, a meta so specific it leaves no room for any other playstyles. Boring to play and to watch.
If blizzard were to fix these things, players would still develop "a meta", but now they would have multiple playstyles, all viable available to them. A game of strategy should have strategic diversity. I don't want to see the same thing every time. I don't want to lose games because I refuse to conform my playstyle to really bad balancing and design.
3 MONTHS without any significant change is unacceptable. I don't care about balance test maps, community feedback updates that result in no changes, or updates that focus on bug fixes. I wan't, for ONCE, a balance update that fixes the things that clearly have no place in the game of StarCraft. I wan't to be able to play mech without getting absolutely destroyed by doom drops, endless streams of better, cheaper units, or mass air, because blizzard things the solution to mech being unpopular is to practically remove it rather than work out a way to fix it.
Balance test maps don't tell you much... update the game, look at how everyone reacts, then make fixes... please Blizzard, this game has so much potential and I implore you to not drive it into the ground like you have been doing for these past 3 months...
|
I never thought that Chess would begin to appeal to me more than playing Starcraft. I always saw Starcraft as Chess 2.0, including all of its glory, strategy, application of intellect, pride in one's ELO rating, but with lots of bells and whistles added. However, the state of the game has left me longing for the "S" in RTS.
Sometimes, I feel like my Queen can jump over pawns to capture. Other times, I feel like my opponent has two Queens because one of my units was intercepted before scouting the right fog of war. Then, there are times where it feels like we are both starting out without Knights and Bishops, and it is hard to recognize the game anymore, because it is very difficult to cover all the pawns that used to be covered on the board/map.
If Starcraft is not going to cover the Strategy genre, what market/niche is it going to cater to? Because the other games would appear to have everything else covered (action, social aspect, ease of pickup, free to play, etc.). Hate to say it, and it is unfortunate that it has come to this, but maybe it is time for some drastic real world change for Starcraft to rise again as a franchise.
|
On April 19 2016 20:44 PressureSC2 wrote:
I never thought that Chess would begin to appeal to me more than playing Starcraft. I always saw Starcraft as Chess 2.0, including all of its glory, strategy, application of intellect, pride in one's ELO rating, but with lots of bells and whistles added. However, the state of the game has left me longing for the "S" in RTS.
Sometimes, I feel like my Queen can jump over pawns to capture. Other times, I feel like my opponent has two Queens because one of my units was intercepted before scouting the right fog of war. Then, there are times where it feels like we are both starting out without Knights and Bishops, and it is hard to recognize the game anymore, because it is very difficult to cover all the pawns that used to be covered on the board/map.
If Starcraft is not going to cover the Strategy genre, what market/niche is it going to cater to? Because the other games would appear to have everything else covered (action, social aspect, ease of pickup, free to play, etc.). Hate to say it, and it is unfortunate that it has come to this, but maybe it is time for some drastic real world change for Starcraft to rise again as a franchise.
It is very easy to play chess online these days.
|
On April 19 2016 07:26 SwiftCrane wrote:
I feel like even though the way people play the game has been changing drastically, and affecting balance significantly, it is still no excuse for nothing being changed in around 3 months. Sure if you give the players enough time they will learn to play around the bad design, but that doesn't mean that the game is well designed. The more you are forced to bend your playstyle around bad balancing decisions the less fun it is.
I don't wan't to have to open something like 3-rax reaper every TvT or be inevitably behind. Sure, if you force the players to play like this, they will have too much commitment to StarCraft to stop playing the game and they will adapt to this and make the game "balanced", but they will enjoy it less. A day will come when they will have had enough and they will switch to other games that are more worth their time.
There are so many thing in the game that are so ridiculous and need blizzard's immediate attention. Things like the new armor ultras, parasitic bomb, liberators, new Protoss immortal shield, pylon overcharge, mass air for all races, lack of mech anti-air, ravagers, invincible nydus, tankevacs (A siege unit that can quickly re position... literally defeats the purpose of the unit...) . There's so many areas that, while technically are ALL OP and can be balanced since all races can use them, force a specific meta, a meta so specific it leaves no room for any other playstyles. Boring to play and to watch.
If blizzard were to fix these things, players would still develop "a meta", but now they would have multiple playstyles, all viable available to them. A game of strategy should have strategic diversity. I don't want to see the same thing every time. I don't want to lose games because I refuse to conform my playstyle to really bad balancing and design.
3 MONTHS without any significant change is unacceptable. I don't care about balance test maps, community feedback updates that result in no changes, or updates that focus on bug fixes. I wan't, for ONCE, a balance update that fixes the things that clearly have no place in the game of StarCraft. I wan't to be able to play mech without getting absolutely destroyed by doom drops, endless streams of better, cheaper units, or mass air, because blizzard things the solution to mech being unpopular is to practically remove it rather than work out a way to fix it.
Balance test maps don't tell you much... update the game, look at how everyone reacts, then make fixes... please Blizzard, this game has so much potential and I implore you to not drive it into the ground like you have been doing for these past 3 months...
I could not agree more.
The last month I have hardly played a single game. That comes from someone with 16K ladder games.
I am a terran player and I am so tired of LoTV I dont know how to find the passion to play anymore.
TvT feels like a mess with Tank drops being extremly powerful (punishing gas less expands, instant-killing late game situations)
TvP is a turtle feast vs super strong Gateway + Immortal armies until you have enough broken liberators to fight. Then late game comes and it is Psystorm + Tempest laser wars vs base-trading Terrans. Might be balanced but I cant say I enjoy it at all compared to HoTS.
TvZ is the best matchup expect a few things, Liberators being so strong against mutalisk and Ultralisk being the biggest hard counter I might have ever seen in a game. Like 2 Ultralisk can turn the tide against 90 marines.
I feel like I am really playing on a timer in this matchup. Had been so much more fun if the midgame was not a fight about killing the Zerg before Ultralisks are out. That is not what the game should be about IMO. Might be balanced aswell. But incredible boring. "This game I won cause my harass was nice and he was not allowed to tech to hive" vs "This game I failed some harass, he could Ultras + Fungals without taking much damage so I lost".
Just try things. I dont care.
Weaken liberators, make the marauder stronger agagain. Rethink the whole Ultralisk change. Do we really need Pylon Charge in the game anymore when Protoss has acesss to Adepts? Cause of ravagers? Well - can try changing that. Try things out. This "balance test map number 34 without changes" is really not my cup of tea atleast.
|
On April 19 2016 07:26 SwiftCrane wrote:
Balance test maps don't tell you much... update the game, look at how everyone reacts, then make fixes... please Blizzard, this game has so much potential and I implore you to not drive it into the ground like you have been doing for these past 3 months...
a guy with 1 post.. who sounds like he's been playing Starcraft for years wants the game to boil down to 1 building that pumps out less than 10 different units. It warms my meckanical heart to know little Avi has the grassroots support of "the people".
|
In the end, it all comes that to this :
DK and Blizzard feel LOTV is a complete product, that only needs balance work. The community feels that the game is still riddled with obvious bad designed stuff that needs immediate attention. Therefore the community feedback updates are stale and pointless since the very basis of the discussion is different between blizz/DK and the community.
But seriously. Band aid photon overcharge, disurptors, tankivacs, liberators, überNydus, parasitic bomb, cyclone, non viable mech, pointless thors, TvT marine tankivacs vs marine tankivacs, PvP disruptor ping pong, ravagers, reapers, adept shade, immortal barrier, revelation, 4 supply tempest, useless BC and raven, speedbanshees, liberator range abuse...
Take your fucking pick DK/blizzard. You can't just sit on your ass while looking at koreans somehow making terrible designed stuff look somewhat nice but while dumbing down any strategic aspect of the games. Instead of witchhunting hackers, which are pretty much non existant in this game compared to others, changing UIs, adding skins, or selling more mission packs (hmmm let's milk the dry-titted cow), fix the terrible design of the game.
|
So while blizzard waits for people to play better to make any adjustments whatsoever. Isnt this a never ending cycle? People will improve and improve.
Or maybe it has to do with the fact that humans's skills grow large at first but then it gets "diminish returns"?
Example: A beginner starts playing table tennis. His skill will grow alot at first and after a while if he wants to improve it will go very slowly.
|
On April 19 2016 21:37 JackONeill wrote:
In the end, it all comes that to this :
DK and Blizzard feel LOTV is a complete product, that only needs balance work. The community feels that the game is still riddled with obvious bad designed stuff that needs immediate attention. Therefore the community feedback updates are stale and pointless since the very basis of the discussion is different between blizz/DK and the community.
But seriously. Band aid photon overcharge, disurptors, tankivacs, liberators, überNydus, parasitic bomb, cyclone, non viable mech, pointless thors, TvT marine tankivacs vs marine tankivacs, PvP disruptor ping pong, ravagers, reapers, adept shade, immortal barrier, revelation, 4 supply tempest, useless BC and raven, speedbanshees, liberator range abuse...
Take your fucking pick DK/blizzard. You can't just sit on your ass while looking at koreans somehow making terrible designed stuff look somewhat nice but while dumbing down any strategic aspect of the games. Instead of witchhunting hackers, which are pretty much non existant in this game compared to others, changing UIs, adding skins, or selling more mission packs (hmmm let's milk the dry-titted cow), fix the terrible design of the game.
This pretty much sums up everything 100% for me.
The only thing I would add is that if I do not actually enjoy playing this game as a competitive strategy game, I will surely not be spectating it because it "feels cool". There are way cooler action-packed things to spectate if I am looking for pure entertainment on a tube. I enjoyed spectating HOTS because I would learn strategy/meta that I could implement in my own games.
No interest in playing, no interest in viewing. I completely understand that it may be different for others, for example, that have only ever spectated and have ladder anxiety, etc. I am not spectating chess games right now, for the mere reason that I am not currently trying to learn, improve my ELO, and get better at chess at this moment. Why would it be enjoyable for me to spectate it?
|
Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 07:26 SwiftCrane wrote:
Balance test maps don't tell you much... update the game, look at how everyone reacts, then make fixes... please Blizzard, this game has so much potential and I implore you to not drive it into the ground like you have been doing for these past 3 months... a guy with 1 post.. who sounds like he's been playing Starcraft for years wants the game to boil down to 1 building that pumps out less than 10 different units. It warms my meckanical heart to know little Avi has the grassroots support of "the people".
While I have not been part of the StarCraft community for nearly as long as others like yourself, and am by no means the best player out there having played only around 2600 games and reached somewhere around mid diamond, I do not see how this invalidates my opinions, which I must admit I can only assume you are trying to do by your rather ironic tone.
Yes, it's true, it is my first teamliquid post. I started playing in 2014 and only turned to the community for advice on the battle.net forums. I'm hardly a veteran in the community, so I am really at a loss as to what made you think that I "sound like I've been playing StarCraft for years", even so, I am fairly sure that at the current skill level I am, beating masters league players at a rate not far from 30% when I do manage to encounter them, I have a chance to voice my opinion about the state of the game and not be dismissed simply due to the fact that I haven't had the chance to play this game as long as everyone else.
This matter aside, I find it strange that you think that I want the game to "boil down to 1 building that pumps out less than 10 different units". I would really be grateful if you explained how you got in all practicality "I want the game to be only mech" (which is evidently what you are referring to), from essentially "I want MANY DIFFERENT viable playstyles".
You then proceed to mock a streamer with a large following who has been supporting StarCraft ever since StarCraft 1, and refer to his supporters as "the people" in what I perceive as Ironic air quotes.
I sincerely hope I misconstrued your post because from my point of view it was a condescending, poorly constructed and poorly thought out argument. And while I may ignore your poor attitude because I know better, it might turn away newcomers from this game that is in great need of them. On top of that I find this type of attitude insulting to those involved in this community for a long time who are willing to accept newcomers and want to see the game improve.
This game has very real issues and blizzard's method of fixing those issues isn't working. I don't want only mech, and contrary to popular belief neither does avilo. I want diversity in strategy, the possibility of bio, mech and air in every matchup, the possibility of roach hydra, ling bane muta and so many more combinations to be viable in their own unique ways.
|
On April 19 2016 21:37 JackONeill wrote:
In the end, it all comes that to this :
DK and Blizzard feel LOTV is a complete product, that only needs balance work. The community feels that the game is still riddled with obvious bad designed stuff that needs immediate attention. Therefore the community feedback updates are stale and pointless since the very basis of the discussion is different between blizz/DK and the community.
But seriously. Band aid photon overcharge, disurptors, tankivacs, liberators, überNydus, parasitic bomb, cyclone, non viable mech, pointless thors, TvT marine tankivacs vs marine tankivacs, PvP disruptor ping pong, ravagers, reapers, adept shade, immortal barrier, revelation, 4 supply tempest, useless BC and raven, speedbanshees, liberator range abuse...
Take your fucking pick DK/blizzard. You can't just sit on your ass while looking at koreans somehow making terrible designed stuff look somewhat nice but while dumbing down any strategic aspect of the games. Instead of witchhunting hackers, which are pretty much non existant in this game compared to others, changing UIs, adding skins, or selling more mission packs (hmmm let's milk the dry-titted cow), fix the terrible design of the game.
This so much. We can only hope that Blizzard read this and re-think their approach to the game.
|
i hope they read this and keep doing what they're already doing.
On April 19 2016 21:37 JackONeill wrote:
In the end, it all comes that to this :
DK and Blizzard feel LOTV is a complete product, that only needs balance work. The community feels that the game is still riddled with obvious bad designed stuff that needs immediate attention. Therefore the community feedback updates are stale and pointless since the very basis of the discussion is different between blizz/DK and the community.
But seriously. Band aid photon overcharge, disurptors, tankivacs, liberators, überNydus, parasitic bomb, cyclone, non viable mech, pointless thors, TvT marine tankivacs vs marine tankivacs, PvP disruptor ping pong, ravagers, reapers, adept shade, immortal barrier, revelation, 4 supply tempest, useless BC and raven, speedbanshees, liberator range abuse...
Take your fucking pick DK/blizzard. You can't just sit on your ass while looking at koreans somehow making terrible designed stuff look somewhat nice but while dumbing down any strategic aspect of the games. Instead of witchhunting hackers, which are pretty much non existant in this game compared to others, changing UIs, adding skins, or selling more mission packs (hmmm let's milk the dry-titted cow), fix the terrible design of the game.
Rain likes it. i like it. i know lots of people that like it. last time i watched Huk play.. he liked it.
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/507812-my-thoughts-on-lotv#16
there is a guy who originally didn't like LotV... kept an open mind... tried it.. and ended up liking it more than WoL and HotS.
don't speak for the community
On April 20 2016 01:02 SwiftCrane wrote:
This game has very real issues and blizzard's method of fixing those issues isn't working. I don't want only mech, and contrary to popular belief neither does avilo. I want diversity in strategy, the possibility of bio, mech and air in every matchup, the possibility of roach hydra, ling bane muta and so many more combinations to be viable in their own unique ways.
thanks for your reply.
i don't think the game has "very real issues".
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.
I want stronger Terran ground and weaker Terran Air ( i think avilo wants that as well?). I'm not expecting it in a matter of weeks or even months though. I figure it'll take 1.5 years after release to balance the game because it takes the best players a few months to really wrap their minds around the game.
|
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 Republic12129 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 Kingdom20282 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 Kingdom20282 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.
|
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.
True, but consider this perspective:
- drop the single player paid DLC and new cinematics 4 months after release.
- drop the community updates and just listen to what we say on the internet. Save the precious time.
- edit the text file with cyclone hitpoints=x and cyclone range=y with a few extra points (say 5) and post the test map to see how it plays out. Then later, maybe adjust it a bit then test some more.
A bit simplistic on my last point perhaps but I do not think that I am out of my mind on these suggestions.
Deliver what you said we were swiping our credit cards for with LOTV and then work on new paid DLC say a year after. Do they think people will just forget their past comments? If so I may have to dig up some more and edit my list and keep reposting it.
|
Pardo was anti-feedback and felt Blizz divulged too much info...
the biggest misconception of this community is that a better game play experience will somehow make the game more popular... it won't.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
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?
Prion is in GSL too
Never been played PvZ, not even once.
5 of the 7 GSL maps are not in the ladder/WCS pool.
2 of the maps that GSL uses were removed from ladder this season and among the best PvZ / ZvP maps of Legacy - Orbital Shipyard and Ruins of Seras - both relatively safe maps for both races that are 50/50 +-2%.
much like the ladder, you can veto it
Two things here:
1; The map pools are different, so there are ideally less unfavorable maps and the unfavorable maps are less extremely unfavorable. You can make more difference with fewer vetos if that's the case.
2; When a best of 7 is played, there are no vetos. When a best of 5 is played, there is only one veto each because there are 7 maps in the pool. Sure on ladder you and your opponent can veto 6 of the 7 maps but that just does not happen in tournament play. It's not acceptable for a map that is 70/30 to be in tournament play for more than one season; i'l be shocked if GSL doesn't remove it next season. Blizzard already kept it for a second.
and once you do, you have super favourable maps for protoss in pvz
Such as?
Prion is literally 70/30 in favor of zerg by todays stats.
The three most popular PvZ maps in GSL are 48%, 51% and 61% win ratio for zerg by TLPD numbers and the map diversity is pretty low as well, so that's 25 of the 30 games that have been played.
so why complain about one map and only nitpick stats?
I'm not and i don't see anybody else doing that either. There are multiple questionable maps right now and the current system for maps in WCS events and ladder is not ideal; I've made more than my fair share of long comments going into more detail about that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As another note of less relevance, it's less fun to play ladder for a hundred or two games over 3 months with a map pool of 4 because you permaveto'd 43% of the map pool. If you veto 3 maps and your opponents of one race tend to veto 2 different ones, you'll disproportionately hit them on only 2 of the 7 maps in the pool and this is very noticable over dozens of games.
Here are my stats for 65 games so far in 2016 season 2 - not the best sample size, but enough for some patterns to show. I'l be taking a closer look after more games.
Frozen Temple: 54% terran, 25% zerg, 21% protoss
Dusk Towers: 44% terran, 19% zerg, 37% protoss
Ruins of Endion: 46% terran, 54% zerg. 0 protoss in 13 games
Ulrena: 25% terran, 17% zerg, 58% protoss
|
Pretty sure 5 out of the 7 gsl maps were in the ladder/wcs pool last season, back when GSL started, so I don't understand why that changes anything? And whenever terran and protoss players were able to veto prion in gsl, they dominated zerg, so clearly the other maps must be good against zerg - especially keeping in mind that zergs ALSO have veto's and remove the maps they feel are the worst.
Now I understand that protoss players have this absolute love for tlpd and/or aligulac stats because it's the only thing that actually supports(albeit tlpd only barely does) their balance whining (meanwhile in Korea, uncontestedly the only source of high end games, zerg is by far the weakest race) - stop looking at tlpd and aligulac, both track a plethora of games that are just not even remotely close to the highest level, I don't care about bad players in go4sc or american cups when it comes to balance, and neither should anyone else.
I 100% agree that prion is the best map for zerg, both in this ladder map pool and the last one - I assume anyone else would agree with this too - but that's why there is a veto system, the ONLY time a t or p is forced to play vs z on prion is in a bo7 tournament as you mentioned aswell - holy fuck who cares? Do you know how many people that will effect? Literally 0.001% of players - and WHEN it happens, the zerg is also forced to play on whatever is the WORST zerg map - which definitely helps balance it out, and if the map pool as a whole is p and/or t over zerg favoured (which we can see in gsl it clearly is) then being forced to play 7 games because of prion is obviously not advantageous to the zerg at all?
Furthermore, as for the oh so elusive GSL only maps that make all the difference apparently - zvp has been played a grand total of 4 times in GSL on rak'shir and sky shield combined, and the zergs went 1-3, which doesn't change anything.
Lastly, you stated that it's not acceptable for a map that is 70/30 to be in a tournament, first of all it's not 70/30 in Korea, frankly we don't know what it would be because it hasn't been played - so we can't actually know, I'll admit there is a distinct chance that prion would also show very good zvt/zvp stats in korea if it HAD been played though. But if you want to start removing the 70/30 or thereabout maps, looking at the code S stats you would have to remove the majority of them - including dusk towers which both protoss and terran players have hyped as the "best" and "most balanced" map in all of lotv.
|
On April 21 2016 12:21 Avi-Love wrote:
Pretty sure 5 out of the 7 gsl maps were in the ladder/wcs pool last season, back when GSL started, so I don't understand why that changes anything? And whenever terran and protoss players were able to veto prion in gsl, they dominated zerg, so clearly the other maps must be good against zerg - especially keeping in mind that zergs ALSO have veto's and remove the maps they feel are the worst.
Now I understand that protoss players have this absolute love for tlpd and/or aligulac stats because it's the only thing that actually supports(albeit tlpd only barely does) their balance whining (meanwhile in Korea, uncontestedly the only source of high end games, zerg is by far the weakest race) - stop looking at tlpd and aligulac, both track a plethora of games that are just not even remotely close to the highest level, I don't care about bad players in go4sc or american cups when it comes to balance, and neither should anyone else.
I 100% agree that prion is the best map for zerg, both in this ladder map pool and the last one - I assume anyone else would agree with this too - but that's why there is a veto system, the ONLY time a t or p is forced to play vs z on prion is in a bo7 tournament as you mentioned aswell - holy fuck who cares? Do you know how many people that will effect? Literally 0.001% of players - and WHEN it happens, the zerg is also forced to play on whatever is the WORST zerg map - which definitely helps balance it out, and if the map pool as a whole is p and/or t over zerg favoured (which we can see in gsl it clearly is) then being forced to play 7 games because of prion is obviously not advantageous to the zerg at all?
Furthermore, as for the oh so elusive GSL only maps that make all the difference apparently - zvp has been played a grand total of 4 times in GSL on rak'shir and sky shield combined, and the zergs went 1-3, which doesn't change anything.
Lastly, you stated that it's not acceptable for a map that is 70/30 to be in a tournament, first of all it's not 70/30 in Korea, frankly we don't know what it would be because it hasn't been played - so we can't actually know, I'll admit there is a distinct chance that prion would also show very good zvt/zvp stats in korea if it HAD been played though. But if you want to start removing the 70/30 or thereabout maps, looking at the code S stats you would have to remove the majority of them - including dusk towers which both protoss and terran players have hyped as the "best" and "most balanced" map in all of lotv.
PvZ has been broken ever since beta, global pro stats show that there is something wrong going on for 5 months straight since launch that is statistically comparable to the BL/Infestor era, a couple of people have been vocal about it, Blizzard responds by nerfing overcharge and adepts because Terrans whined enough to make it seem like a more urgent matter and by fucking making natural gold on Prion Terraces and a terrible pool for season 2 (so terrible that Korean organizers don't want them), and you think that Protoss players whine too much? What the heck? I get the feeling that ever since BW Protoss players have been the less whiny ones and that might be why they often get the short straw. Now that they somehow dare to mention that it's been enough stalling (aka. the infamous "waiting for the meta to settle") and being the scapegoat for everything that is wrong with Starcraft, they somehow get to be the most whiny ones. Lol. Talking about mote and beam.
|
the biggest misconception of this community is that a better game play experience will somehow make the game more popular... it won't.
You are definitely right to some extent, but at least if they get 1 out of 2 right (assuming SC2 continues to decline in popularity), they can show that the Blizzard brand can still eventually get it right by fixing problematic releases like LOTV and vanilla D3. Better than scoring 0/2 on gameplay and popularity.
I am slowly coming to grips with the fact that the Blizzard of old is gone. Now it's all about pleasing the masses including the shareholders.
|
On April 21 2016 21:51 PressureSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +
the biggest misconception of this community is that a better game play experience will somehow make the game more popular... it won't.
You are definitely right to some extent, but at least if they get 1 out of 2 right (assuming SC2 continues to decline in popularity), they can show that the Blizzard brand can still eventually get it right by fixing problematic releases like LOTV and vanilla D3. Better than scoring 0/2 on gameplay and popularity. I am slowly coming to grips with the fact that the Blizzard of old is gone. Now it's all about pleasing the masses including the shareholders.
Damn right. I wish they were still there but I trust they will never make a great game again. Better turn our attention and support to other developpers. It will be hard to find new gems in the genres that Blizzard developped before, because what they did in RTS or hack'n slash (or MMO if you want to count Wow vanilla, I think I would though it's not as close to perfection as Starcraft/D2/War3 imo) was pretty much unequaled. The name of the company has stayed but Blizzard is really gone.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
the biggest misconception of this community is that a better game play experience will somehow make the game more popular... it won't.
Worse gameplay & watching experience will make the game decline faster, though
|
|
|
Are there reliable statistics on number of 1v1 multiplayer games, or twitch viewers, etc.? I would be interested to see the graphs. My impression is that streamers and viewers are slowly moving away from it, in particular for about the last month.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On April 21 2016 23:20 PressureSC2 wrote:
Are there reliable statistics on number of 1v1 multiplayer games, or twitch viewers, etc.? I would be interested to see the graphs. My impression is that streamers and viewers are slowly moving away from it, in particular for about the last month.
At the end of HotS there were 250k(more or less) active accounts for 1v1 at nios.kr. I looked at it in January and the number for LotV active accounts was 300k.
nios is no longer active and for some of the reasons I may accept that the LotV number isn't correct.
I dare to say the population at the start of the year was the same as at the end of HotS(remember, taht some people were mostly active in the beta of LotV)
|
Interesting. Does this include everyone active and playing the fresh single player campaigns?
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
And plenty of people don't or think that there is a lot of room for improvement, i'm not sure where this is going. Healthy criticism is not only good but neccesary.
--------
@above - http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/ has a lot of stats like nios did, it says that 198k people played legacy 1v1 last season
It also shows representation by league and by race so there are a lot of stats to look at (6.5 - 7% of overall players in masters, 39% Z + 23% P in eu masters)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
