EPTFor the Tempest ability, we agree that the current state isn’t working out. In response, our process is to first identify the issue (which we believe our community has done well)
Wow Blizzard. How condescending. Instead of admitting that it was a terrible idea that plenty saw as soon as it was announced and took a shitfest to bring to attention, they instead type out this smug stement.Community Feedback Update - October 14 - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Scrubwave
Poland1786 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Snute
Norway839 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + disclaimer: i haven't played the test map | ||
|
SCHWARZENEGGER
206 Posts
| ||
|
ShamanElemental1
56 Posts
Dear Blizzard the current changes in the balance test are pretty good and i respect you guys for trying, but i think the current problems in starcraft is the asimetry and the harassment. 1. Zerg is way stronger on ladder because its easier to play in lower ranks like Masters and Diamond. And the current matchups require alot of aggresion from T and P players who dont have the required skill to execute. 2. Zerg is really bad in Korea and competive play because its very hard to get anything more from the macro race ( who got nerfed in the macro area ), once the race is figured a skilled player can destroy zerg without much of a problem 3. Starcraft 2 suffers more from design problems then balance problems. For example units that overlap or are just better then older tools ( Liberator ) or units that have no place design wise in the race ( Swarmhost ) 4. The harassment units seem way to good, i think alot of units are doing way to much damage, and while is flashy... it becomes very stupid with time. My solution is to revert back the macro mechanics, lower some damage points and add some micro to certain units instead of spammable abiltys. And we can adjust balance from there. | ||
|
BaneRiders
Sweden3630 Posts
On October 15 2016 03:02 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The existence of turtle mech disagrees. Protoss needs some sort of anti-turtle tool, and while the tempest isn't an elegant solution, it is a solution. Let the carrier provide air superiority and the tempest provide the assault on the ground units / siege up on buildings and tadaa, they compliment each other nicely in a late game scenario.  | ||
|
SetGuitarsToKill
Canada28396 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On October 15 2016 04:30 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: So with the season closed, when are we going to hear about next season's maps? Blizzcon complicates things. They might go with a short season with the same maps, and swap them out after Blizzcon. | ||
|
TelecoM
United States10700 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17381 Posts
On October 15 2016 03:49 petro1987 wrote: About the cyclone, I think people just rather have a stronger AA in factory. That's why some people are advocating in reverting the design to the current live version. ignore this. i changed my position on the cyclone after playing more PTR games. + Show Spoiler + i want a Cyclone with strong anti-air. so i prefer the current live version of the Cyclone. i'm on the fence about whether or not the Cyclone should be produced 2 at a time via a Reactor add-on. On October 15 2016 04:08 ShamanElemental1 wrote: 1. Zerg is way stronger on ladder because its easier to play in lower ranks like Masters and Diamond. And the current matchups require alot of aggresion from T and P players who dont have the required skill to execute. T is my favourite race to play. Z is my best race. Its been that way for years.. not just lately. i just accept that i'll have a lower rank playing T. My micro for Zerg is acceptable ... my micro for T is comically bad. most of my scrub pals have the same experience with T and Z that i do. i'm a diamond random. just my $0.02. | ||
|
LHK
204 Posts
The warp prism is a very solid way to punish immobility, adepts shading to every which base can deal a lot of damage. If you're trying to limit minerals, storm drops or adepts can destroy an SCV line, if you're trying to limit gas, double warp prism with 4 immortals can destroy a CC in record time. Protoss has a lot of options to circumvent a turtle terran. Expanding is rewarded so much more in LOTV compared to HOTS, that a turtle playstyle isn't as effective because you relinquish map control and your opponent can out expand you rapidly. If Carriers retain their release interceptor ability, they offer cheap zone control, especially with the mineral reduction cost of interceptors. As far as Adepts go, I'm not sure where they landed on this, but the vision isn't the problem. Protoss uses adepts to scout, and it's really necessary - getting a lot of sentries early for halluc phoenixes just isn't very viable right now as there are a magnitude of all in's that punish it. The cooldown, however, is where I believe it should be nerfed. I'm always amazed at how much I can get done with adepts, and by the time they are starting to be responded to I can begin to shade away and kite so as to minimize losses. In regards to directly, head ups fighting mech as protoss, I don't think protoss is at a huge disadvantage. Shades can force unsieges / resieges on tanks and really slow down pushes. A heavy immortal count is still very strong against a lot of mech. The biggest problem I face personally vs a mech terran is a lot of widow mines so I can never engage, but this really requires a terran to be heavily entrenched in an area. If you allow Terran to get a heavily entrenched turret/mech/Mine area that threatens your bases, that's a misplay on your part, you should be able to slow it down and trade units out slowly. Personally I prefer the live cyclone over the new one, but as to what is objectively better, I can't say. The PTR redesign feels easily massable and once it hits a critical mass it becomes terrifying and forces Protoss to go air, which even then isn't a solid solution, but again I have limited experience in this regard. My biggest concern is with the warp prism, if it gets a HP nerf and a terran does eventually invest heavily in turrets you can never threaten production with it, and some maps don't allow you to pick off turrets from low ground. Camping terran production is a necessary "kill move" when they have a high economy, which turtle mech will have started to bank once maxing out. This mostly will come down to map design though, as If the map doesn't allow you to threaten the main after a certain point it must allow you to be aggressive in other scenarios. For the swarm host, I'm not too sure as I stopped playing zerg seriously in 2014, But I always thought even with the redesign, the unit was almost fine but the cooldown was just a little too long, maybe a 10% reduction in the cooldown. I don't think many people like the idea of harrassing with swarm hosts - I think what a lot of people want is a way to bolster their main army with units that can tank some fire while their min/gas/supp units get into better position and do damage. This just hasn't been possible with the live SH as if you even try it, the cooldown is so long you basically have dead supply and die to any follow up. Just some personal thoughts and feedback, I'm not claiming to know everything or have the right answers. edit: I really wish the collosus were viable in PvZ. Personally I feel the range upgrade is the problem - the gas investment to get even a single collosus out is so great, and they are mostly useful against ling styles, that as soon as zerg sees Col. being made, a muta switch is on the table which can outright kill you. Perhaps a) reducing the range upgrade cost or b) removing the range upgrade altogether could allow them to be viable again. With the pretty hefty nerf between Hots and LOTV for Col, I feel any 'all-ins' that crop up from this aren't nearly as scary as they otherwise could be. But again, I'm just thinking out loud on things I wish existed or were possible here. | ||
|
Fran_
United States1024 Posts
On October 15 2016 03:49 petro1987 wrote: I actually think this is the best community update in a long while. The tempest ability was a long duration weaker psistorm and it would be a nightmare to balance. In the current form, it's very very strong. The new ability seems to have a more defined purpose and also offers a better counterplay. About the cyclone, I think people just rather have a stronger AA in factory. That's why some people are advocating in reverting the design to the current live version. I'm almost indifferent to the ground attack (between the test map and live version), but I like the live version AA much more. My suggestion is either revert the design and keep the being reactorable buff, along with a minor hp buff, like +20, or keep the test map design, but lower the ground DPS, but buff the AA DPS. About the swarmhost, as DK stated, definitely deserves a nerf. The dmg is too high for the price. I feel from a Terran perspective, a reactored cyclone with more HP would break TvP early game. I really wouldn't want to have only one option to open (reactored cyclones) because it's too good. | ||
|
ShamanElemental1
56 Posts
On October 15 2016 04:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i want a Cyclone with strong anti-air. so i prefer the current live version of the Cyclone. i'm on the fence about whether or not the Cyclone should be produced 2 at a time via a Reactor add-on. T is my favourite race to play. Z is my best race. Its been that way for years.. not just lately. i just accept that i'll have a lower rank playing T. My micro for Zerg is acceptable ... my micro for T is comically bad. most of my scrub pals have the same experience with T and Z that i do. i'm a diamond random. just my $0.02. While the problem was obivous since forever, the changes in LotV killed LBM who had more skill then Roach/Ravager/Ultralisk. It whent from a more acceaptable problem to quite a mess. The whole aspect of TvZ was murdered, transformed into the old TvP where one race turtles and the other attacks. The problem its to in our face now and without design changes, i feel TvZ will be a really messed up match. I dont want to wait for Starcraft 3 to see design changes. | ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
| ||
|
SetGuitarsToKill
Canada28396 Posts
On October 15 2016 04:51 LHK wrote: As far as Adepts go, I'm not sure where they landed on this, but the vision isn't the problem. Protoss uses adepts to scout, and it's really necessary - getting a lot of sentries early for halluc phoenixes just isn't very viable right now as there are a magnitude of all in's that punish it. The cooldown, however, is where I believe it should be nerfed. I'm always amazed at how much I can get done with adepts, and by the time they are starting to be responded to I can begin to shade away and kite so as to minimize losses. Definitely agree with this. Vision nerf is nice but the cooldown is what needs to change. Adepts running around every which way and shading every 5 seconds is such a pain to deal with. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17381 Posts
On October 15 2016 05:07 ShamanElemental1 wrote: I dont want to wait for Starcraft 3 to see design changes. i had the same issue with Brood War. I'm better with Zerg than Terran. So are my scrub buddies. we can just throw zerglings at things with little micro and if things aren't going well just pull back. Not so with Terran. i have to babysit every single Terran attack. players with an APM double or triple mine don't even view it as "babysitting". Blizzard balances this asymmetrical game for guys who play at 2,3, or 4 times faster than i play. i'm not expecting perfect balance at my level of play. Its balanced enough for me at my level. I don't think Diamond players should expect the same fine tuned level of balance that the best players in the world should have. my main complaint with LotV is that Terran is/was too air-centric. Slowly, Blizz has been addressing this issue so i'm a happy camper. | ||
|
bakemonoda
United Kingdom18 Posts
| ||
|
NutriaKaiN
88 Posts
 | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17381 Posts
| ||
|
Ransomstarcraft
75 Posts
On October 15 2016 03:03 BronzeKnee wrote: The community has done well? Starcraft 2 would probably be on top of the world if the customers weren't solely responsible for identifying issues. The design team should be at the helm and leading. Blizzard should be explaining to us why the Tempest should have X ability, how it makes the game better, but they can't (actually, I'd still like an explanation of why the Tempest needs to exist, since it overlaps so much with the Carrier). Just like how they thought the original Swarm Host was going to be this sick mid game units that would allow Zerg to end the game if they got way ahead. How did that work out? That isn't to say the community shouldn't have a say, but Blizzard's approach of throwing out random units and ideas and then backing off when/if there is a community outcry is an awful approach. And yet we continue to do that. How much money in development costs were sunk into the Warhound? How much beta time was used to test that ridiculously bad idea? People at Blizzard need to be held accountable for the terrible ideas that are ruining this game. And that is a productive discussion that needs to be had. There have been only 2 times in the past when the SC2 was better, in my opinion. 1. The very first season of competitive gsl for Starcraft 2 when Marineking was doing things like winning with crazy basetrades and marine/medivac drops. 2. the second to last season of Wings of Liberty before Zergs discovered Infestor Broodlord. Three things make for great Starcraft: Creativity in players, unpredictability in games, and Superior execution in strategies. I believe the current build of Starcraft is the third most interesting time because of the complexity that now exists in the game. There are very few things that haven't been tried, but thousands of people have been playing this game now for 6 years straight. It is foolishness to say things like "Blizzard is ruining this game." Blizzard made the best RTS in history thus far. The community does play a part, testing this massively complex game through thousands of tests to determine if a unit actually does play a necessary role. I don't know how many playtesters Bizzard employs, but I know they employ some. I agree with you that Blizzard has pandered too much to the whiners. That period needs to be in the past. From where I sit, Blizzard is better than just about any other game company at conception, development, playtesting and executing good gaming ideas. They are like the Apple of video games, they provide a quality gaming experience. Now, my opinions on the questions for today: 1. Tempest - Yes, the Tempest may have a place as a "field-control" type of unit. Protoss does not need any more worker harass options. Field control is extremely powerful though, so the unit cannot maintain sharpshooter dps and also control the battlefield. 2. Tank - The attack rate of the tank is extremely important, and the importance of burst damage in a dps-based race like Terran is so high and so volatile that we should expect lots of tweaking on this in the future. 3. Swarm Host Nerf - Yes please. 4. The Cyclone - The new cyclone is much more interesting and better designed than the old one. Terran does not need another unit that has to always be micro'd. Terran is the only race that doesn't have reliable tanking units and therefore is dependent on microing every unit. The live cyclone is so heavily dependent on micro that it's just gimmicky. It doesn't work with too many other units or compositions. These kind of units have a place, but Terran has greater needs in terms of mech and the transition to late game, so it fits better there. The hybrid ground dps and tankiness plus the anti-air potential (raised with micro) is a better design decision for the cyclone. | ||
| ||
