|
Hey everyone. We’ve been reading your comments and discussions these past few weeks and value the things you’ve been saying. In response, we wanted to clarify some things so you might better understand our perspectives on some key issues. Hopefully we’ll then all move forward with more effective and constructive discussions.
In addition, we’ve recently been referencing Korean feedback in our updates and we haven’t given much detail into how that process works, so we wanted to provide more transparency on this topic in order to keep you all as well-informed as possible.
Sourcing Korean Pro Feedback
Over the past year or so, we considered a great many ways to gather feedback from Korean pros, and we have ultimately arrived at a place that provides a comprehensive and consolidated voice via KeSPA. We’ve established a two-way communication channel with KeSPA where we’ve made it easy for them to reach out to us with any feedback they may have. When we have questions for them, they reach out to their players for feedback, and upon receiving it, they identify the key points which the pros have identified and present the feedback as “one KR pro voice” to our design team. How frequently this happens depends on what the current issues are, so some weeks we have multiple back and forth discussions, whereas other weeks we might not have any topics to discuss.
This has had huge advantages for us. Because there’s “one pro voice” coming in from the Korean scene now, we can more easily relay these opinions to you guys like we have been doing so far this year. Because our community has become such an integral part of the development of StarCraft II, we believe that it’s crucial to relay this info, and this method makes it very easy to do so. Another advantage we see is that it makes sharing feedback easier. Not every pro wants to discuss balance with Blizzard, for example, but they may feel more comfortable speaking to coaches, managers, or members of KeSPA with whom they’re closer. This allows us to source feedback from players who are equally as skilled, but may be less vocal about sharing feedback.
That being said, we definitely want to make it clear that we don’t take Korean pro feedback and then immediately make changes to the game based on it. We do use the feedback to balance against what other pro players, our internal data, and the community are indicating to make the best decisions possible. We see true value in gathering different forms of data and feedback before making a decision. This is why we’re relaying their feedback to you, so that our community also has the tools to look at the big picture before making a conclusion. Few things are more harmful than looking at data from only one source and then making definite conclusions, and we hope that the additional transparency into how KR feedback is gathered provides some additional insight.
Balance Test Maps vs. Balance Patches
Moving forward then, we’d like to discuss Balance Test Maps. This week we saw a lot of discussion around how, in Wings of Liberty or Heart of the Swarm, Balance Test Maps translated to balance patches rather often, and how this has not been the case in Legacy of the Void. We discussed this point a while ago (during the beta), but we wanted to re-highlight the topic for additional discussion.
In the past, we worked with the community to determine that we should be aggressively testing various changes even if they don’t end up in the game. This allows us to have a wide array of changes lined up in case they are needed. While this approach may not actually be the best option (because we’re testing such a large number of changes), we wanted to try it out and see how well it worked. Going back to how we did Balance Test Maps in the past (fewer tests, greater likelihood of changes going into the game) is also an option.
We’d love to hear any feedback on this and hear the reasons why we believe one method may be working better than another. For instance, testing changes can cause players to become excited to see a change added to the game. With aggressive testing, however, most changes we test will not be added to the game and so this approach can potentially cause people to become upset when their change is not implemented.
While we haven’t seen this discussed, we want to share one of the main goals we are striving for with StarCraft II—the joy of mastery. Because unit changes only happen when they’re absolutely needed, players can chase the fun of really digging deep into how each specific unit is mastered. We believe this is one of the core fun elements of StarCraft II, and one that is unique to this game. If units were changing drastically all the time, it could feel far less rewarding to invest time and effort to master them. This is a large reason why we believe so strongly in the importance of making as few changes as possible and targeting specific problem areas only when absolutely necessary.
Removing or Re-Testing Changes
There was also a lot of discussion around removing or re-testing changes, so we wanted to clarify some points on this as well. The two main reasons we’ve observed this are:
- After sharing a change with the community, additional details are discussed and we realize that our initial direction wasn’t good.
- For example, thanks to your input, our Ravager nerf didn’t look to be a good route due to the nerf having a big impact in TvZ, where Ravagers don’t need to be nerfed.
- Sometimes, changes are put on hold due to more important things being tested.
- For example, Thor changes are something we wanted to spend more time exploring, so they were put on hold.
We strive to give you the justifications for why we’re moving toward (or away from) a specific direction because we believe a close working relationship with our community is critical. If you still have questions—we miss things at times—please just ask and we’ll do our best to clarify.
The last thing we’d like to mention here is that iterating and working on these issues isn’t easy. While it would be easy to just give up and say we’re not getting anywhere, those of you out there who are really putting in the effort to make the game better will clearly see that, over time, you are making a positive impact. This feeling of accomplishment is what keeps our team members going. One of the biggest reasons why we strive for a deep level of community involvement is to enable the most passionate and dedicated players out there to experience this feeling of accomplishment as well. Let’s do our best to continue working together, even though it’s tough at times, for the betterment of the game.
Today’s Balance Test Map
Our stance on the Terran changes remain positive, and we believe that these could be ready to go into the game once the numbers are fully tested. There will be a Balance Test Map where we can focus on testing the changes, and we’d encourage you to discuss your experiences using the Balance Test chat channel. Please try to arrange equally-skilled matchups before giving feedback so that the feedback can be of a much higher quality.
The Photon Cannon changes and Swarm Host changes both look good, but let’s make sure to get to the exact details of them so that we can make a call on whether or not we should push these changes out to the live game. The Photon Cannon changes aim to specifically target the problem that our community pointed out. Additionally, the Swarm Host changes may be helpful because they could alter the usage and reliance on Mutalisks in the matchup, and we wanted to bring another underused unit into play.
|
The Photon Cannon change looks good?
How many things do you specifically need to design to kill Mutalisks before you realize maybe Mutas are the issue?
|
Imo the most important thing is to hear Korean Programers about the balance.
|
I will say it again, balance test maps are simply a bad concept to begin with. A dedicated server for potential balance/design changes would be way better, you could have matchmaking there and also give people who test these changes something for their time.
Other games have a pbe server as well, sc2 should have one too!
Please try to arrange equally-skilled matchups before giving feedback so that the feedback can be of a much higher quality.
|
On April 22 2016 03:03 DinoMight wrote:
The Photon Cannon change looks good?
How many things do you specifically need to design to kill Mutalisks before you realize maybe Mutas are the issue?
I mean if you nerf Mutalisks (which are already not as good zvt due to liberators), nobody will build them at all. I would rather stalkers get an AA buff or something, but they will go with the photon overcharge.
On April 22 2016 03:07 The_Red_Viper wrote:I will say it again, balance test maps are simply a bad concept to begin with. A dedicated server for potential balance/design changes would be way better, you could have matchmaking there and also give people who test these changes something for their time. Other games have a pbe server as well, sc2 should have one too! Show nested quote +Please try to arrange equally-skilled matchups before giving feedback so that the feedback can be of a much higher quality.
Starcraft 2 did have a dedicated server for changes back in the day. It wasn't popular and not many players played it. That is why they moved away from it and did the test maps.
|
and still no changes whatsoever. 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 22 2016 03:07 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 03:03 DinoMight wrote:
The Photon Cannon change looks good?
How many things do you specifically need to design to kill Mutalisks before you realize maybe Mutas are the issue? I mean if you nerf Mutalisks (which are already not as good zvt due to liberators), nobody will build them at all. I would rather stalkers get an AA buff or something, but they will go with the photon overcharge. Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 03:07 The_Red_Viper wrote:I will say it again, balance test maps are simply a bad concept to begin with. A dedicated server for potential balance/design changes would be way better, you could have matchmaking there and also give people who test these changes something for their time. Other games have a pbe server as well, sc2 should have one too! Please try to arrange equally-skilled matchups before giving feedback so that the feedback can be of a much higher quality. Starcraft 2 did have a dedicated server for changes back in the day. It wasn't popular and not many players played it. That is why they moved away from it and did the test maps.
Which is why bandaid fixes are horrible to begin with. The foundation has to be as solid as possible.
I hope blizzard realizes this and changes their design/balance philosophy
PBE: Well and now balance test maps are popular? I doubt it? If popularity is a problem give players a reason to play pbe and don't change it to test maps which most likely have the same problem. All this change shows is that blizzard doesn't care
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
On April 22 2016 03:01 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
Please try to arrange equally-skilled matchups before giving feedback so that the feedback can be of a much higher quality.
How about you give an incentive for people to try? Most pro players don't even bother with test maps, but that's absolutely feedback they could use.
|
i thought they would discard the cannon buff... well... lets just hope for the best, but this are dark time my friend :/
|
photon overcharge perfectly balanced. 2 pylons defend all bases perfectly with 0 chance of harass from air or ground
|
Mutalisks are fine as is; maps being used for competition, on the other hand, ...
|
Reading these weekly updates I get the impression that the entire balance team has been laid-off right after LotV release and that only David Kim is left, who is making all these things up (internal testing, KR pro feedback, etc). That would explain why there were no patches since the Protoss nerfs. And even that one was kinda late. Being that DK is working alone, he couldn't do it any sooner.
|
Buffing canons to do more damage vs bio air units.....
Change the terran turret to do extra damage vs shield units.... oh wait that sounds silly to do....
|
Did D.Kim say that Z is reliant and uses a lot of mutas in ZvP???
|
On April 22 2016 03:29 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
Buffing canons to do more damage vs bio air units.....
Change the terran turret to do extra damage vs shield units.... oh wait that sounds silly to do....
Turrets kill Oracles just fine.
|
United Kingdom20345 Posts
I mean if you nerf Mutalisks (which are already not as good zvt due to liberators), nobody will build them at all. I would rather stalkers get an AA buff or something, but they will go with the photon overcharge.
They should really adress liberator AA IMO. Muta styles ZvT have always been quite good to watch and play when they're been roughly balanced. They could also then make minor changes to the muta and/or to things like stalker anti-light-AA.
Lib can be stronger anti-ground and still be balanced if it's not so good at shutting down units like Mutalisks; that prevents people from playing a style like muta-ling heavy into terrans, even in the early midgame. 2 libs are good at shutting down muta and 6-8 libs are amazing at it
|
On April 22 2016 03:07 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 03:03 DinoMight wrote:
The Photon Cannon change looks good?
How many things do you specifically need to design to kill Mutalisks before you realize maybe Mutas are the issue? I mean if you nerf Mutalisks (which are already not as good zvt due to liberators), nobody will build them at all. I would rather stalkers get an AA buff or something, but they will go with the photon overcharge. Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 03:07 The_Red_Viper wrote:I will say it again, balance test maps are simply a bad concept to begin with. A dedicated server for potential balance/design changes would be way better, you could have matchmaking there and also give people who test these changes something for their time. Other games have a pbe server as well, sc2 should have one too! Please try to arrange equally-skilled matchups before giving feedback so that the feedback can be of a much higher quality. Starcraft 2 did have a dedicated server for changes back in the day. It wasn't popular and not many players played it. That is why they moved away from it and did the test maps.
I mean, you had to download/login to a completely seperate server to use the PTR. It was very inconvenient.
|
On April 22 2016 03:34 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +I mean if you nerf Mutalisks (which are already not as good zvt due to liberators), nobody will build them at all. I would rather stalkers get an AA buff or something, but they will go with the photon overcharge. They should really adress liberator AA IMO. Muta styles ZvT have always been quite good to watch and play when they're been roughly balanced. They could also then make minor changes to the muta and/or to things like stalker anti-light-AA. Lib can be stronger anti-ground and still be balanced if it's not so good at shutting down units like Mutalisks; that prevents people from playing a style like muta-ling heavy into terrans, even in the early midgame. 2 libs are good at shutting down muta and 6-8 libs are amazing at it
I actually think it might be in an okay spot. Zergs still go mutas in the matchup, but they can no longer *only* go mutas. You'll usually see 8 mutas while going hive, and they can poke around and find openings just find vs liberators.
Blizzard's goal for LotV seems to be compositions with a variety of units in them. HotS style ZvT was bio mine vs mass muta, and eventually the zerg would just get too many muta. PvZ was pure blink stalker, etc.
I'd say they're doing that pretty well. I think the midgame might be a little short right now, though.
|
On April 22 2016 03:33 RaFox17 wrote:
Did D.Kim say that Z is reliant and uses a lot of mutas in ZvP???
I think he misspoke. Pretty sure he meant that because of the mutalisk threat in ZvP Protoss is almost always forced to open phoenix all the time.. It's not the only use for phoenix obviously but they would be used a hell of a lot less without sucha huge mutalisk threat.
|
Buffing cannons... what is this...
After spore, Phoenix, Phoenix range, Thors 4*(6+6) anti air, spore + bio damage, just another band aid fix for mutas.
And these "lets nerf libs and bring the banshee speed upgrade from tier 3.5 to 2.5" ... really? It has been shown that the new air-mech style with mass banshees and liberators is trash and gets completly shut down by both races, why do they think this would bring anything. The banshee is not good for anything then harassing, the upgrade keeps sitting there like Medivac Energy Upgrade... I can understand nerfs to the liberator, but please then buff something on the ground! The starport is a mess anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
