|
Major Balance Design Patch
First we would like to thank everyone for understanding that a lot of these proposals aren’t final yet. We were a bit worried that people will jump to extreme places and make immediate conclusions that aren’t necessarily correct, and was so awesome to see that this was largely NOT the case. For just over a year now, we’ve been working to integrate the community as part of our design process, and this response has given us even more confidence that this was definitely the right call. There have been drastic improvements to the flow of discussion and the thought processes of our community, and it is just really awesome to see.
We expect that working together on finalizing changes for this major patch with you guys will be a great experience!
With that said, because the changes have been out for such a short time, let’s focus a bit more on the high level goals and mindset we should approach this process with going forward. And we can definitely talk about the details of each change in the weeks to come.
Completely Changing the Fundamentals of the Game
We’ve seen some international feedback requesting that we make drastic, sweeping changes to how the game functions. Though this isn’t representative of the feedback we’re seeing most often, we wanted to make it clear that our goal is to keep StarCraft II similar to the game it is now, while making big improvements within it.
We strongly believe that the worst thing we can do to StarCraft II is make changes that turn it into a completely different type of game. Therefore, we’d like to ask everyone to keep focused on keeping the core fun of StarCraft II while making improvements within the game.
Competition of which race got how much more or less than another race
We wanted to point out that things like “giving an equal number of changes to each race” is not the goal of the proposed changes. In Legacy of the Void’s current state, It’s super clear that not every race is in an equal state, and it’s never been the case that each of the race gets an equal number of changes in any balance update we’ve done (expansions were an exception for their own reasons). With these design changes, we have a unique opportunity to put our entire focus on making sure that every matchup is in a balanced, fun, and diverse state. With this in mind, if a race already has more options in a matchup, it will not get as many ‘diversity’ buffs as the other race who only has one option. In short: the end result of these changes is what is important, not the changes themselves, and we hope everyone can get onboard with this way of thinking.
Matchmaking for the test map
As you may have heard, we intend to get a matchmaking service online for those interested in playing more with the upcoming changes. We wanted to give you guys a rough estimate of when this could go into the game; currently we’re aiming to release this a bit less than a month from now, but we’ll let you know once the release date is looking more solid.
Thanks again for being so patient and precise with your feedback! We’ll continue reading through your thoughts, and we look forward to continuing to work on this update together with you.
|
Cannot wait for the matchmaking! Good job blizzzzz
|
Wow.... a lot of stuff going on. I'll hope they'll bring some more, for instance: seting opponent's race in unranked (practice purposes).
|
the matchmaking thing on the balance test map is neat. I will definitely play the shit out of it.
|
what i want to see is more people rallying behind each other for specific changes, instead of people fanning out too much into a thousand changes.
|
Nice fast reaction from blizzard i played like 15 games of balanc test map, and actually i know some changes wont make itto the end, for example its cool to see cyclones but it needs at least a bit of nerf cuz its damage per secodnd is insane  , also like the hydra change and zealot charge gain, but tempest, i dont think its usable anymore, its like only purpose is to kill broodlord and liberator which feels sad , it got nerfed hard like thor counters it ! and hydra eat them for mreakfast, the ability is cool idea but its useless during battles with no stationary battle like fight vs hydra queen lurker baneling u can fire the ability but u wont be able the gain any thing from it cuz battle is going to end before it deals damage... als voidra is just dead need some work on that gu in my opinion, i would also like to see 50 hp taken at start of lotv for no reason to giv eit back after taking release interceptors away... also i think toss need some buff on some of the infantry units, T feels imba with changes it got cuz they just can go every tech route and stil be able to deal early damage, hold off attacks, however i like old tanks back , seems like tank pushes are great now ) zerg is kinda ok i think with changes love hydra change sorry for long read
|
Well I personally agree with what Lokwo and Winter said.
Terran feels very strong but they want Zerg and Protoss to get buffed not Terran nerfed. So with that in mind as a Zerg player I must say what I like and dislike and what I would really like.
First of all I think 4 larva should be tested , the economy of 3 larva for Zerg has been quite the obvious problem in LotV.
Then I would love for a "new" early unit, because lings and roaches can't deal with the early and midgame anymore.
So the new unit could maybe be a SH redesign since we really don't like the current SH design.
It could be a unit that helps Zerg buy more time and deal with the already brutal harassment in the early game, Queen AA helps defend the air harassment but the ground is a big problem.
As for the Zerg changes suggested by Blizzard.
I love the new Infestor, the new ability can be used to reposition and surprise attack. It can't be a harass tool because 100 for 2 trips is to much energy.
Casting FG is way better now.
Would love upgrades back to the infested terrans and no research for the neural parasite.
Hydralisk are better now but the cost and the low HP can't make this unit a core for Zerg.
Would like a bit more HP at least or make them cheaper.
Banelings are good and bad , better vs T and P but bad for ZvZ.
I'm hoping they make banelings way faster instead of HP buff.
SwarmHost are just bad at this role, you guys tried this role to much, it's time for a redesign, make this unit be something else.
Ravages are in a bad spot because they are basically worse roaches... marauders, tanks, cyclones, stalkers and immortals just destroy them.
I think they don't need the armored tag, at all.
Brood Lord seems the same but I would prefer a Thor buff instead of a Brood Lord nerf.
|
how about they just delete the SH
why do we need 20 units per race (exaggeration obviously), what we need is the core units to be good and a handful of fun abilities as a bonus. I'd much rather see less than more, Zerg got the lurker, that's great, do we really need a SH now when we also have Mutas, Nydus, Ovie drops, Ravagers and now the new infestor?
|
|
|
Golly, this game is so technical; perhaps that's the type of game people really want?
I would do the following: enlarge bounding box parameters (units can't squeeze together so tightly, causing Massive Units to single-file down some corridors).
Enlarge maps and create real open spaces; asymmetrical shapes to a lot of the map;
and make it harder to get to Tier 2 and 3.
Those are the things that will most help, not unit balance.
|
On August 20 2016 05:04 Edowyth quoting David Kim:
Completely Changing the Fundamentals of the Game
We’ve seen some international feedback requesting that we make drastic, sweeping changes to how the game functions. Though this isn’t representative of the feedback we’re seeing most often, we wanted to make it clear that our goal is to keep StarCraft II similar to the game it is now, while making big improvements within it.
We strongly believe that the worst thing we can do to StarCraft II is make changes that turn it into a completely different type of game. Therefore, we’d like to ask everyone to keep focused on keeping the core fun of StarCraft II while making improvements within the game.
the core of the game is fun. a total overhaul is going overboard. the changes made to the economy and the foundation of the game made during the LotV beta are still working well. No need to revisit it again.
i'm glad DK addressed this loud minority of players directly so that every one knows a total overhaul is not imminent.
On August 20 2016 05:04 Edowyth Quoting David Kim:
Competition of which race got how much more or less than another race
We wanted to point out that things like “giving an equal number of changes to each race” is not the goal of the proposed changes. In Legacy of the Void’s current state, It’s super clear that not every race is in an equal state, and it’s never been the case that each of the race gets an equal number of changes in any balance update we’ve done (expansions were an exception for their own reasons). With these design changes, we have a unique opportunity to put our entire focus on making sure that every matchup is in a balanced, fun, and diverse state. With this in mind, if a race already has more options in a matchup, it will not get as many ‘diversity’ buffs as the other race who only has one option. In short: the end result of these changes is what is important, not the changes themselves, and we hope everyone can get onboard with this way of thinking.
i'm fully on board with this way of thinking.
|
On August 20 2016 08:15 emc wrote:
how about they just delete the SH
why do we need 20 units per race (exaggeration obviously), what we need is the core units to be good and a handful of fun abilities as a bonus. I'd much rather see less than more, Zerg got the lurker, that's great, do we really need a SH now when we also have Mutas, Nydus, Ovie drops, Ravagers and now the new infestor?
We rarely see Mutas and Nydus.
The best diversity is within Protoss. Almost all of their units are viable in some shape or form.
Both Zerg and Terran are forced for now in certain unit comps.
For example in the current meta , you will never see Lurkers,Mutas,Hydras, SH vs T
Just like you don't really see Ultralisk, Brood Lord, Infestor vs P ( that mostly because Zerg is forced to all in vs Protoss or die in late game )
|
On August 20 2016 05:04 Edowyth Quoting David Kim:
Major Balance Design Patch
First we would like to thank everyone for understanding that a lot of these proposals aren’t final yet. We were a bit worried that people will jump to extreme places and make immediate conclusions that aren’t necessarily correct, and was so awesome to see that this was largely NOT the case. For just over a year now, we’ve been working to integrate the community as part of our design process, and this response has given us even more confidence that this was definitely the right call. There have been drastic improvements to the flow of discussion and the thought processes of our community, and it is just really awesome to see.
We expect that working together on finalizing changes for this major patch with you guys will be a great experience!
With that said, because the changes have been out for such a short time, let’s focus a bit more on the high level goals and mindset we should approach this process with going forward. And we can definitely talk about the details of each change in the weeks to come.
in my view you are at the stage where you are throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. As I see it, We are in a similar stage to the times when the Marauder Concussion Shell was not even an upgrade back in early WoL. So people should not freak out if certain "super builds" or "super micro tactics" get discovered.
|
we wanted to make it clear that our goal is to keep StarCraft II similar to the game it is now, while making big improvements within it.
To the contrary, big improvements imply drastic changes from what Starcraft II is now. The resulting game must look 'much' different. But by what standard? There is no true way to tell, and I think so many people misunderstand that. When some say 'large,' and 'entire game,' it is not as absurd as one may think. What constitutes similarity? Apparently, it means not changing any designs outside of particular unit designs, to Blizzard.
My argument is that they avoid such things because the cost is too high, and they are a risk-averse (as any company might be). There's nothing wrong with that, per se.
The reason for their aversion is not, as they say:
We strongly believe that the worst thing we can do to StarCraft II is make changes that turn it into a completely different type of game.
The contention is that no major changes would make Starcraft II better. Such is... plain absurdity, which is why I don't believe they hold such a position. What he says is a very weak sentiment opposed.
I contend that there are sweeping changes which would make the game, and the whole situation, better and give a profit for their troubles: removing macro boosters (properly called, they are not macro mechanics (a rhetorical sleight of hand from Blizzard / booster's proponents, I think)) and re-balancing the game around that (if necessary) is one such change I believe would entertain such great increase in this game's popularity, and the reader may disagree but they certainly should not disagree with the principle which allows one to forward such suggestions.
Therefore, we’d like to ask everyone to keep focused on keeping the core fun of StarCraft II while making improvements within the game.
Which leads me to believe this is deflection. They wish to oust the most clear and principled sort of criticism, which generally calls for such large and sweeping changes. The 3x5 index card of allowable opinion has been filled, there is no room for systematic opposition.
|
Anyone else feel ultimately we will get a few minor changes? They are already back peddling out of aggressive changes to help grow the game.
|
On August 20 2016 09:55 Jaedrik wrote:Show nested quote +we wanted to make it clear that our goal is to keep StarCraft II similar to the game it is now, while making big improvements within it. To the contrary, big improvements imply drastic changes from what Starcraft II is now. The resulting game must look 'much' different. But by what standard? There is no true way to tell, and I think so many people misunderstand that. When some say 'large,' and 'entire game,' it is not as absurd as one may think. What constitutes similarity? Apparently, it means not changing any designs outside of particular unit designs, to Blizzard. My argument is that they avoid such things because the cost is too high, and they are a risk-averse (as any company might be). There's nothing wrong with that, per se. The reason for their aversion is not, as they say: Show nested quote +We strongly believe that the worst thing we can do to StarCraft II is make changes that turn it into a completely different type of game. The contention is that no major changes would make Starcraft II better. Such is... plain absurdity, which is why I don't believe they hold such a position. What he says is a very weak sentiment opposed. I contend that there are sweeping changes which would make the game, and the whole situation, better and give a profit for their troubles: removing macro boosters (properly called, they are not macro mechanics (a rhetorical sleight of hand from Blizzard / booster's proponents, I think)) and re-balancing the game around that (if necessary) is one such change I believe would entertain such great increase in this game's popularity, and the reader may disagree but they certainly should not disagree with the principle which allows one to forward such suggestions. Show nested quote +Therefore, we’d like to ask everyone to keep focused on keeping the core fun of StarCraft II while making improvements within the game. Which leads me to believe this is deflection. They wish to oust the most clear and principled sort of criticism, which generally calls for such large and sweeping changes. The 3x5 index card of allowable opinion has been filled, there is no room for systematic opposition.
What kind of changes? Just remove chrono/inject/mules and add a thesaurus or two? He's talking about turning SC2 into an entirely different game, which would mean a lot more changes than that.
|
Matchmaking is going to be fantastic.
David Kim, if you read these comments, thanks man.
|
I am a Grandmaster Starcraft II Viewer! With these changes, I just want:
1. Mech to be viable. It can get boring seeing Bio, Bio, Bio, Bio, Bio, Bio, Bio, Bio... Terran needs an alternative. Protoss and Zerg have alternatives, why can't Terran? Terran is the only race that never moves into Tier 3 tech.
2. I want to see units that don't get used actually get used. The following units either never get used at a competitive level, or are used very rarely: Thors, Battlecruisers, Colossi, Void Rays, offensive Ravens, Brood Lords, Swarm Hosts, and Infested Terrans. Variety is good!
3. I want Siege Tanks to feel like Siege Tanks, and Lurkers to feel like Lurkers. The element of siege is very absent in this game.
4. I know pros hate them, but yellow bases are exciting to watch.
|
Not qualified to opine on the balance these days but good to see the communication is a two-way street.
|
How bout we just get rid of the gimmicks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
