EPTMaybe do a sick/hard-to-earn meta-achievement for having played a certain number of games on three different test maps (sth. like that). Not that much effort to do and still better than having a rewarding feeling of accomplishment for doing all that customer work lol.
Community Feedback Update - April 21 - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Creager
Germany1923 Posts
Maybe do a sick/hard-to-earn meta-achievement for having played a certain number of games on three different test maps (sth. like that). Not that much effort to do and still better than having a rewarding feeling of accomplishment for doing all that customer work lol. | ||
|
Nazara
United Kingdom235 Posts
| ||
|
Scarlett`
Korea (South)2396 Posts
| ||
|
Clonester
Germany2808 Posts
On April 22 2016 04:10 Scarlett` wrote: changing the liberator damage to 4+3 is too big of a nerf vs corruptors (2base armor) -> from 10 damage to 4; and honestly they arent that big of an issue vs split up corruptors right now. rather nerf the AOE so they are still okay vs corruptors in low number ( such as playing vs the ravager fast ultra into corruptor style thats almost standard zvt rn ) but not hard counter mutas so hard to hopefully make muta bane viable again As the thor just got removed from the anti muta field with his new anti air, I guess blizzard have to keep the lib with the + light damage. Or else Terran is again fighting with marines and mines against ling-bane-muta, because, hey, its 2013. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17500 Posts
On April 22 2016 03:01 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: 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. i like aggressive testing with lots of experimentation. i realize this means many of the test changes will get scrapped and never used in the real game. i'm totally cool with that. some self-important community members somehow believe a test map means you're committing to a change ; they get very angry when the change never arrives. too bad for them. i don't care if they get angry and make angry posts; i dont care if they say bad things about David Kim, the dev team, and Blizzard. the emotional state of self-important community members is meaningless to me. Keep Up the Great Work Mr. Kim! | ||
|
Tresher
Germany404 Posts
Im pretty sure he is not talking about Oracles. Maybe Void Rays? They shred Turrets (or any other Static AA) in seconds. You don´t even need Mass Void Rays for this. Static-AA is meant to counter Air Units except Capital ships just like in BW. "Because our community has become such an integral part of the development of StarCraft II" Good joke. EU and US is mostly left aside for years. EU the most. And Iam NOT talking about Pros. | ||
|
Aegwynn
Italy460 Posts
| ||
|
Sholip
Hungary422 Posts
Also, that Liberator change seems like a very heavy nerf against Corruptors. I would agree with Scarlett, better reduce their splash radius if they want to nerf it a bit. I always felt it was unreasonably big in the first place. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
This is not the way to go about solving this problem! I am honestly not sure of a better alternative but I am confident that Blizzard has cause/effect mixed up in this case... | ||
|
FrkFrJss
Canada1205 Posts
On April 22 2016 05:34 Qwyn wrote: I'd like to see another alternative tested that encourages Protoss players to open with a tech other than Stargate rather than making mutas in ZvP a complete impossibility... This is not the way to go about solving this problem! I am honestly not sure of a better alternative but I am confident that Blizzard has cause/effect mixed up in this case... It's certainly a tough situation. If they (and others) view that mutas are a problem, then what's the answer? I don't know if the solution is to buff the stalker. Any buffs to the stalker aa will affect other matchups. If it's a buff to bio AA, then all zerg air will suffer, and also, it makes the stalker damage bonus a lot more complex because you'll run into the situation of damage vs armored air and damage vs armored bio air and damage vs light bio air. If they swap the damage bonuses of vs armored to vs light, then the PvT matchup gets nerfed unnecessarily, and if you make the vs air damage of a stalker a flat 16, then it's a massive bonus to anything that is not armored air. However, with the cannon, as inelegant as it might be, it's the smallest change that affects the smallest matchup, because you don't as often see zerg flying air over cannons that are not mutas (corruptors sometimes). | ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary408 Posts
| ||
|
CheddarToss
534 Posts
On April 22 2016 06:09 FrkFrJss wrote: It's certainly a tough situation. If they (and others) view that mutas are a problem, then what's the answer? I don't know if the solution is to buff the stalker. Any buffs to the stalker aa will affect other matchups. If it's a buff to bio AA, then all zerg air will suffer, and also, it makes the stalker damage bonus a lot more complex because you'll run into the situation of damage vs armored air and damage vs armored bio air and damage vs light bio air. If they swap the damage bonuses of vs armored to vs light, then the PvT matchup gets nerfed unnecessarily, and if you make the vs air damage of a stalker a flat 16, then it's a massive bonus to anything that is not armored air. However, with the cannon, as inelegant as it might be, it's the smallest change that affects the smallest matchup, because you don't as often see zerg flying air over cannons that are not mutas (corruptors sometimes). The smallest change, which is not dumb, is buffing Stalker AA damage to a flat 14. This change is not 100% elegant, but there are already units in the game, that have differing AG and AA damage values. The change has limited effect on other matchups. The only fighting units affected in vT and vP are the Banshee and the Phoenix. The Banshee doesn't see much play in the MU anyway and Phoenix should be weaker than it is currently. So it's a good change all around. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20327 Posts
The only fighting units effected in vT and vP are the Banshee and the Phoenix. It affects the Oracle too, but there was a push recently to make the oracle Armored* with one of the main reasons being so that Stalkers dealt with them better. This change also accomplishes that, but it doesn't affect the Oracle vs Phoenix interaction. * http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/505739-a-change-to-the-oracle | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16062 Posts
It really feels like blizzard has abandoned sc2 and DK is just making excuses each week. Yeah he says he changes things if they are a problem but we still have 8 armor ultras, 4 supply tempests, parasitic bomb and mass liberators which just lead to bad gameplay regardless of balance. And things like flying tanks almost everyone hates are still in the game because DK thinks it's cool. Nobody can tell me that the proposed tankivac removal + tank buff wasn't a PR move, I don't believe for a second DK seriously considered "letting the tank fullfil it's fantasy" | ||
|
terrantosaur
42 Posts
a) laddering is just 75% defending all-ins as a terrran (Masters). Will it be reapers in TvT, roach/rav in TvZ or fucking Pylons under your ramp (or 15 other "all-ins" available to Protoss while they take their third base) b) tankivacs are just stupid. SC2 is an RTS game - for those people without 500APM, WOL and HOTS allowed people to play a positional/more strategic game of SC2. TvT often defaults to who can doom drop most effectively and has a "coin-flip" quality to it nowadays. c) Protoss is too strong vs T. Zest has been showing it for weeks and showcases at the highest level what most Terrans on ladder already know. Cmon. Tempest supply/adepts/immortals. I saw a GM game the other day where a protoss proxied 2 robos outside the terran's natural. It was scouted early and was still impossible to stop. Perhaps Maru could stop it (if he got lucky with the scout) but let me tell you that 99% of ordinary players can't. The difference in skill required to be the protoss and do the attacking (while expanding!) vs being the terran and defending is a joke - especially with the WP pick-up range. I convinced myself of this by off-racing with the build and it's stupid how easy it is to win. d) Zerg... sigh. Where to start. Ultras, invincible nydus, ravager nonsense. Tankivacs and liberators are the only things making tvz playable. Tankivacs shouldn't be in the game and liberators are being nerfed. e) the design of some of the terran's new units are just bizarre. Cyclones are all but never used except sometimes in early game tvt/tvp - where you build one. And that's it. Reaper grenades - what is the point of these except to encourage all-ins in tvt? There is a reason why, when you take a look at viewing figures on TL for Brood War vs SC2, SC2's viewership is behind and falling: the game is just not fun to play. LotV is a poor cousin of HotS and IMO there needs to be radical redesign. I agree entirely with those above who lament that week after week we get procrastination. Could we not see a "radical" test-map where tankivacs are removed and mech is buffed. At least those of us interested in mech could then try to ascertain what needs to change (ie terran needs proper anti-air from the ground + cyclone needs complete redesign). | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16062 Posts
Confused why they want to go through with the banshee change despite almost nobody liking it. Don't think the liberator nerf will make much of a difference. | ||
|
AdrianHealeyy
114 Posts
Maybe we should do something about the widow mine-muta interaction and just go back to ordinary muta regen? | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20327 Posts
On April 22 2016 06:39 AdrianHealeyy wrote: Widow Mines => Fast regen for muta's => all other problems Maybe we should do something about the widow mine-muta interaction and just go back to ordinary muta regen? I think that minor adjustments to widow mine & liberator AA splash in return for something like that would make the game better in multiple matchups. You can make Muta more usable against T while also reducing the need for insanely powerful and specific static defenses (large damage bonus to air biological) on both Z and P. | ||
|
ihatevideogames
570 Posts
| ||
|
NicolasJohnson
30 Posts
I never play mutalisk in zvp since phoenixes are the go to unit in the beginning, so the cannon buff may be ok, but let's not forget that if it's a buff vs bio, it will probably deny baneling drops in mineral lines which allow zergs to harass. The mass adepts nonsense should also be adressed. Yes, the unit is used, so it's ok. But I don't think it's fun to play against, especially with the super shade which can go through units and adepts are far too tanky. A SH buff cost wise would be cool, since even if you could afford more of them, they still can't constitute a proper army because of the cooldown on the locusts. | ||
| ||
