|
On May 28 2016 05:15 D_K_night wrote:
That's what low graphics settings is for.
That aside, well no, the entire point of skins and differentiating graphical looks is for other ppl to see them. What's the point of even releasing custom skins if they are not visible?
So no. World of Warcraft players have also asked to disable everyone else's transmorghify options just because they personally found obnoxious that people wanted to customize their own look. Blizzard thankfully did not cave into that.
The paid skins won't be any more obnoxious than the existing WoL collector's edition Thor, the HOTS ultralisk, the marines with bladed rifles, etc.
They are just simple graphical enhancements that make the game look cooler and more unique.
I'm pretty sure this whole idea came from a small but vocal group of amateur eSports directors who think paid skins are going to somehow save SC2 like they saved CSGO. It's not the same, there can't be some massive underground skin betting market in Starcraft, it's just going to be one more way to nickel-and-dime loyal fans. SC2 is kept afloat by a pretty hardcore community these days, and skins are a casual feature for WoW and Hearthstone players. Keep them in co-op with the casuals. The "standard" SC2 experience has always been distinct from the arcade/campaign experience and ruining that with a blatant attempt at money-grubbing is going to turn off a lot of fans.
|
Separate MMR per Race must happen. I do not play Protoss and Terran because of that...
|
On May 28 2016 05:30 BaronVonOwn wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 05:15 D_K_night wrote:
That's what low graphics settings is for.
That aside, well no, the entire point of skins and differentiating graphical looks is for other ppl to see them. What's the point of even releasing custom skins if they are not visible?
So no. World of Warcraft players have also asked to disable everyone else's transmorghify options just because they personally found obnoxious that people wanted to customize their own look. Blizzard thankfully did not cave into that.
The paid skins won't be any more obnoxious than the existing WoL collector's edition Thor, the HOTS ultralisk, the marines with bladed rifles, etc.
They are just simple graphical enhancements that make the game look cooler and more unique. I'm pretty sure this whole idea came from a small but vocal group of amateur eSports directors who think paid skins are going to somehow save SC2 like they saved CSGO. It's not the same, there can't be some massive underground skin betting market in Starcraft, it's just going to be one more way to nickel-and-dime loyal fans. SC2 is kept afloat by a pretty hardcore community these days, and skins are a casual feature for WoW and Hearthstone players. Keep them in co-op with the casuals. The "standard" SC2 experience has always been distinct from the arcade/campaign experience and ruining that with a blatant attempt at money-grubbing is going to turn off a lot of fans.
Right on the money IMO.
|
I wonder what possible other important online system request are there other than Seperate MMR per race? Surely seperate MMR per race should had been one of the first priorities. It has been requested since WoL, but never implemented.
|
I agree that the separate race mmr is something most players would realy appreciate. I think that showing worker count in the ui would actually be quite a big quality of life change for Zerg players. It possible with the existing ui to count your workers but when your under pressure you can lose track. Zerg more than other races needs to carefully consider thier worker count especially during the early game so this could have an impact on a lot of us mortals but even be useful to pros. I don't know how I feal about it though.
|
i totally disagree, terran is op atm. They should nerf more or protoss and zerg will quit the game.
|
Yes to everything!! Separate workers from army in UI is a good thing for lower league players like me.
|
On May 28 2016 04:20 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 04:15 TheWinks wrote:
If terran wasn't overpowered why did they nerf it without compensation? Why are they pretending the result is going to be anything other than making the race weaker? They nerfed liberators because the way it annihilated zerg air wasn't good design. And they didn't nerf it without compensation--they buffed thor anti-air. Also just because Terran isn't overpowered, it doesn't mean it's perfectly balanced in TvZ.
8 armor ultras are bad design too. Design itself isn't enough rational to nerf a race that isn't overperforming and is probably underperforming and if you're going to do it, you need to compensate it with something.
The Thor change is not a buff, just like removing the AA in beta was not a nerf.
|
With separate MMR I might go back to ladder, and go random again so I could play bronze terran and possibly something better with the other races. It would be fun not to auto-lose every time I get terran... 
|
On May 28 2016 04:38 avilo wrote:
Tempest was originally 6 supply and supposed to be 6 supply especially for the stats on the unit and what it does.
Currently it is overpowered because it's overly efficient at 4 supply. During one of the HOTS beta patches they lowered it to 4 supply with one of the reasons being "people weren't building them."
It needs to go back to 6 supply.
I disagree with you 90% of the time, but this is that 10% where you are definitely correct.
On May 28 2016 04:19 [PkF] Wire wrote:
tempest supply increase + a slight warp prism nerf and the game reaches the best state it's ever been in.
Completely agree, the long range pick up is pretty obnoxious, it's a flying mineral only Gateway at the moment, not a drop ship. When a Terran wants to drop 2 medivacs worth of units, it's very powerful, but it's also a huge commitment in gas, warping in 10 Zealots from a mineral only drop ship seems kind of unfair in comparison.
|
Hate to be a negative nancy, but the state of the game is terrible. The game is incredibly unbalanced for different races at different points im the game. For example, tvz is now just if you can kill the zerg before he gets ultras. THIS IS NOT FUN. Late game was my favorite part but now it is incredibly one sided. Either nerf the ultra or bring back the old marauder. Why they did both of those at the same is beyond me. Second, the mirrors are shit. I had to quit playing terran due to the coinflipiness. It was my favorite in hots. Now reapers are just stupid and you many times will insta lose to dub reaper. Tank vacs are cancer- its all about who can drop 5 airged tanks into the others base first. Positioning no longer means anything. Immortals were stupid good and collosus were stupid bad. And dont get me started on roach ravager or lurkers
|
On May 28 2016 07:10 TheWinks wrote:
8 armor ultras are bad design too. Design itself isn't enough rational to nerf a race
Yes it is
On May 28 2016 07:10 TheWinks wrote:
if you're going to do it, you need to compensate it with something.
Yes of course
On May 28 2016 07:10 TheWinks wrote:
The Thor change is not a buff, just like removing the AA in beta was not a nerf.
Its a buff and it was a nerf.
Design is way more important than balance, because it doesn't matter how perfectly balanced the game is if is boring and awful.
|
I've been playing a lot of off-race Z (almost as strong as my main race tbh).
I played a game within the last two days on frost, ZvT, my opponent had a 30-50 army supply lead, and i won the game because i managed to get out 8 armor ultras and a-moved into 3 liberators + his 30-50 army supply lead.
Something is very, very wrong with 8 armor ultras. I mean it's been obvious - the unit is absurdly broken.
I shouldn't be able to a-move with a 30 army supply deficit, zero micro, and beat someone that was beating me the entire game simply because i got out a tier3 unit =/
|
On May 28 2016 07:10 TheWinks wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 04:20 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On May 28 2016 04:15 TheWinks wrote:
If terran wasn't overpowered why did they nerf it without compensation? Why are they pretending the result is going to be anything other than making the race weaker? They nerfed liberators because the way it annihilated zerg air wasn't good design. And they didn't nerf it without compensation--they buffed thor anti-air. Also just because Terran isn't overpowered, it doesn't mean it's perfectly balanced in TvZ. 8 armor ultras are bad design too. Design itself isn't enough rational to nerf a race that isn't overperforming and is probably underperforming and if you're going to do it, you need to compensate it with something. The Thor change is not a buff, just like removing the AA in beta was not a nerf.
The Thor change is definitely a buff, though you could argue as to how much of a buff it is. From what I've seen of them so far in pro games they seem pretty okay in the right circumstances. Also if you look at the Korean TvZ results over the last few months terran sure as hell isn't "probably underperforming".
And I completely disagree that "Design itself isn't enough of a rationale to nerf a race". Design is way more important than balance. You should strive for balance and compensate when necessary, but trying to get the design right should always be the primary goal.
|
On May 28 2016 04:19 [PkF] Wire wrote:
tempest supply increase + a slight warp prism nerf and the game reaches the best state it's ever been in.
And a slight buff to every gateway unit to compensate for these unneeded nerfs.
|
United States4126 Posts
Separate MMR and skin packs have been asked for since WOL. I can't believe it took this long for Blizzard to even consider asking the community if we really wanted them.
|
On May 28 2016 08:13 CheddarToss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 04:19 [PkF] Wire wrote:
tempest supply increase + a slight warp prism nerf and the game reaches the best state it's ever been in. And a slight buff to every gateway unit to compensate for these unneeded nerfs.
you're absurdly delusional about the state of Protoss in high level play.
I don't think P is hugely favored, but there is little debate they dominate the pro scene atm and that both those slight nerfs (tempest supply + warp prism range) would make a lot of sense balance and design wise.
|
On May 28 2016 07:51 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 07:10 TheWinks wrote:On May 28 2016 04:20 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On May 28 2016 04:15 TheWinks wrote:
If terran wasn't overpowered why did they nerf it without compensation? Why are they pretending the result is going to be anything other than making the race weaker? They nerfed liberators because the way it annihilated zerg air wasn't good design. And they didn't nerf it without compensation--they buffed thor anti-air. Also just because Terran isn't overpowered, it doesn't mean it's perfectly balanced in TvZ. 8 armor ultras are bad design too. Design itself isn't enough rational to nerf a race that isn't overperforming and is probably underperforming and if you're going to do it, you need to compensate it with something. The Thor change is not a buff, just like removing the AA in beta was not a nerf. The Thor change is definitely a buff, though you could argue as to how much of a buff it is. From what I've seen of them so far in pro games they seem pretty okay in the right circumstances. Also if you look at the Korean TvZ results over the last few months terran sure as hell isn't "probably underperforming".
The Thor change isn't a buff because it's the return of a mode that wasn't used in hots. To top it off, that mode is weaker than it was in hots thanks to extra range on broods. It was removed because it was useless and it has not returned in a decidedly more powerful state than it was in hots. We have tons of data that it wasn't a useful mode AND it's relatively weaker thanks to unit it's supposed to be useful against getting buffed against it. If we gave the battlecruiser a near useless ability that wouldn't be a buff either. Also, the world is more than GSL, even in Korea.
On May 28 2016 07:51 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
And I completely disagree that "Design itself isn't enough of a rationale to nerf a race". Design is way more important than balance. You should strive for balance and compensate when necessary, but trying to get the design right should always be the primary goal.
So you would support something like a straight nerf to something like ultra armor without compensation for the sake of design, regardless of the impact of balance? You shouldn't. You can do it when a race is overpowered because the nerf is justified and you hit two birds with one stone. When there is no compelling balance issue, you have to compensate to prevent doing another widow mine style nerf. In that case they couldn't even figure out a way to dig themselves out of the hole they dug so they just reverted it.
|
On May 28 2016 07:47 avilo wrote:
I've been playing a lot of off-race Z (almost as strong as my main race tbh).
I played a game within the last two days on frost, ZvT, my opponent had a 30-50 army supply lead, and i won the game because i managed to get out 8 armor ultras and a-moved into 3 liberators + his 30-50 army supply lead.
Something is very, very wrong with 8 armor ultras. I mean it's been obvious - the unit is absurdly broken.
I shouldn't be able to a-move with a 30 army supply deficit, zero micro, and beat someone that was beating me the entire game simply because i got out a tier3 unit =/
As zerg eco gets larvas nerf + mutas ball no longer cost effective, if zerg had invested 600/700 to get infest pit/hive ultras + armor tech while T had invest nothing on tech if he only had bio +3 only liberators, it just normal T had a supply lead.
Don't mean "he had outplayed you" like you're trying to suggest but more : T tried to all-in with high number of low tech units while he sacrified his tech but didn't managed to win so got crushed by superior tech.
It's just basic game knowledge. Else zergs can just make 200/200 roachs and say they should beat any 150-170 supply army because they have 30-50 supply lead !
T just wants better early mid game than on HOTS with liberator/tankyvac and larvas nerf AND when they reach 3/3 bio become godelike ?
Hots TvZ bio vs LBM was far better to play but "community" ask for macro change/mutas hard counter, so ultras +8 is just here to compensate those changes, else zerg can't beat terran.
|
On May 28 2016 08:33 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 08:13 CheddarToss wrote:On May 28 2016 04:19 [PkF] Wire wrote:
tempest supply increase + a slight warp prism nerf and the game reaches the best state it's ever been in. And a slight buff to every gateway unit to compensate for these unneeded nerfs. you're absurdly delusional about the state of Protoss in high level play. I don't think P is hugely favored, but there is little debate they dominate the pro scene atm and that both those slight nerfs (tempest supply + warp prism range) have been advocated for for ages and would make the global balance far better.
Why do you, and people that share your opinion, ignore that on the highest level of play (as in Korean tournaments) people play on different maps, which are better for Protoss, while the rest of the world plays on the shitty ladder maps? According to aligulac last week PvZ was at 50% for the first time since LotV release. We are talking about 8 months of PvZ being between 42 and 48%, but most of the time closer to 42%. And now that the MU is finally fair for both sides, it's time to give Zergs another 6-7 months of free wins?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
