|
Even DK seems to think that winrates settling means balance getting better. Judging from stats, it seems that this current "protoss getting better" is just protoss players distribution settling to lower leagues.
In a ladder system where system tries to get every player to winrate of 50%, winrates obviously don't mean much if anything. However, if we take a look how players are distributed to leagues, we see the following:
Protoss players in platinum or higher out of all protoss players: 28,5%
Terran players in platinum or higher out of all terran players: 35,3%
Zerg players in platinum or higher out of all zerg players: 40,8%
I think the difference between P and Z is massive. The percentage of zerg players in diamond or higher is pretty close to protosses in platinum or higher (out of all players in respective races).
That being said, on the top level balance seems pretty good, all races have made finals and it doesn't seem like players race is barring players from doing good. It just seems that Blizzard doesn't really see what happens below top level.
Source: http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/races/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&l=-2
|
In my view, the pro balance of the game is only really an important/significant issue after most people that have been playing this game at a fairly high level for several years believe that the game design itself is in a good state.
There are many other games/titles on the PC that may be proven to be balanced for competitive play, but you will not necessarily see very many players, spectators or even a community rally behind the game if the game design is deemed to be poor for the year 2016.
The community had a certain level of expectation with respect to SC2 game design for the last expansion in the series. There were expectations of improvement, not of regression (HOTS). Rather than building over fundamentals, it seems that Blizzard has invested too heavily in the shiny/flashy mechanics (to the detriment of fundamentals), and the result is disappointing game design.
Fix the game design, and then I am sure you will be able to still balance it for the 0.01% of top players (GSL). GSL balance should not be the most important thing at this stage of the LOTV process, because whether anyone wants to admit/accept it or not LOTV should still be considered in development as it relates to the multiplayer aspect.
|
On May 05 2016 05:34 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
these community posts make me so sad.. why on earth would you go to the community to balance your game?
Because there's no point in balancing a game that no one plays? If all you do is force-feed the community shit sandwiches, that's what you'll end up with. I don't think the community is good for proposing changes but it's pretty good for vetoing bad changes.
|
as a person who did heavy test map testing during thor flat splash period, let me offer some opinion on the thor change
I really don't like it- I believe that single target long range AA should go into cyclone and make it cheaper/more disposable instead of the current mess of the lock on mechanics.
Even if the above wasn't possible, Thor being single target could use more help in that department as it is losing the splash damage
Now onto my points:
Thor change:
Thor change is really overall nerf to utility of the unit- Thor is 6 supply unit that does 35+15- numbers may look impressive at glance, but it really is population inefficient. Its not really useful at all but vs broodlords- which it doesn't do great against since both sides can kite each other and broodlings block the thors. Thors also have clunky firing delay that worked with burst damage nature of the javline missles, but doesn't work as well with faster-firing current change missles.
Not only that, the damage isn't really great- 25 air DPS vs armored for 6 pop unit isn't really "worth" it when its huge, blocky (blocks other thor from firing at same time) when vikings can stack and do just as well and offer fast, reliable single target focus-
You may argue that Parasitic bomb is a big threat for the vikings, but binding cloud does just as much vs AA thors in denying damage. There is no real reason to make thors against lategame air except in TvT when it becomes liberator coutner.
For comparison, Vikings do 19.6 single target DPS vs armored air, while thor offers 25 single target dps. Thors cost 6 supply while vikings cost 2 and is more mobile. There is no real incentive to make thors for the anti air capacity when it does so poorly. It had its niche as AA vs muta in past, now it doesn't do anything much.
---
build diversity:
Also, opening factory is difficult now with 2 base muta becoming a much larger threat- turret+thor isn't enough anymore vs 2 base muta openers since thors do so poorly against mutas as it became a single target 17.5 dps unit-
What made thors great vs muta was the splash and also the burst damage of thor that punished mutas flying into base. Thor offered an instant, splash damage response but with change, it doesn't anymore. Thor right now offers 14 dps over 3 seconds with small splash, while the change makes thor a 17.5 dps SINGLE target over 2 seconds, which is whole lot worse against mutas.
Not only is it less burst and instantaneously punishing. it loses the splash damage for very minor 3.5 dps upgrade.
Its worse even vs magic boxed muta. Factory openings are simply discouraged with this change going through.
|
fix tempests, fix liberators, fix siege tanks, fix ravagers, fix ravens, fix vipers, fix cyclones
....
|
To me, the biggest problem with protoss is that twilight council, immortals and warp prism are just too good. Let me explain a bit: every all-in are done with putting a TC and a robo to get the prism just before starting to push. Then, if the all-in fails, the protoss already have a robo (and even often an empty but up third for a few weeks), and with prism being so good, the protoss can still prevent the zerg from attacking for a few minutes with adept harass or possibly a DT that also can be used to defend (or kill a third...). This gives him the time to build 3-6 immortals (possibly be adding a second robo) so that he can still secure a third easily.
My point is the following: before, when a protoss failed a all-in, it was hard to come back as the protoss needed to go for colossus (so possibly robo + bay + upgrade) and terran/zerg was able to punish the protoss. Now, with immortal being so good and so easy to build (just robo, no upgrade, robo already used for prism), it is much harder to punish an all-in if the protoss is good at harassing with a prism (which is very easy against zerg).
Conclusion: nerf immortal/prism!
|
On May 04 2016 13:33 Cascade wrote:
Can't do game design by community democracy, or you'll end up with Boaty McBoatface.
|
Maybe you could, if there was a system of polls and something to help decide what to put in the polls by the community, and then those polls decide of the proposed modification (of course after enough discussion). But with a "CFU" weekly arbitrarily deciding which feedback is heard and which is ignored (including polls), it makes it look like community democracy is bad  but really it's not at all the community who decided of these changes at all is it. You'd need polls on various topics and iterations on polls.
Skilled developpers can still make great games without community polls...
|
Protosses are like unicorns... so rare these days :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
