|
On October 22 2016 05:52 Probe1 wrote:If you had to pick the least worrisome harass units from a ZvX perspective, you've found them. Adepts are cool. They're very challenging to handle and I'm okay with the vision decrease. That's a nice change that adds risk/reward/planning to the unit without nerfing them. But they aren't the most dangerous harass unit Protoss can field. They aren't even on the same playing field as an oracle. I've seen everyone, from pro down to silver, fail to scout a build up of 4-5 oracles then BAM, your entire economy and every queen you've ever made or thought about making is dead. Adepts?Tankivacs?If Terran wants to harass with tankivacs I'm okay with it. It's widow mines in a three pronged harass that kill me. Tankivacs are relatively slow to develop. You see them coming, they hit you, you respond. Widow mines if not seen the moment they drop from a medivac will incur their terrible terrible damage quota instantly and there's no getting back all those drones. Sheesh. If you want to tone down harass, maybe pick the units that can end games because of single mistakes made in a moment. Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 04:12 Ej_ wrote:
yeah sure buff the fucking anti air of the new cyclones
thats what ive been wanting tbh
mech having a fucking thor on rollerblades
that kills roaches
perfect Preach it.
I bet you're a protoss player since you find adepts "challenging" lol.
Overwhelming majority of zerg players don't see oracles as worrisome as adepts, not even close.
|
On October 22 2016 06:06 Aegwynn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:52 Probe1 wrote:Adepts, Warp Prisms, and Tankivacs
If you had to pick the least worrisome harass units from a ZvX perspective, you've found them. Adepts are cool. They're very challenging to handle and I'm okay with the vision decrease. That's a nice change that adds risk/reward/planning to the unit without nerfing them. But they aren't the most dangerous harass unit Protoss can field. They aren't even on the same playing field as an oracle. I've seen everyone, from pro down to silver, fail to scout a build up of 4-5 oracles then BAM, your entire economy and every queen you've ever made or thought about making is dead. Adepts?Tankivacs?If Terran wants to harass with tankivacs I'm okay with it. It's widow mines in a three pronged harass that kill me. Tankivacs are relatively slow to develop. You see them coming, they hit you, you respond. Widow mines if not seen the moment they drop from a medivac will incur their terrible terrible damage quota instantly and there's no getting back all those drones. Sheesh. If you want to tone down harass, maybe pick the units that can end games because of single mistakes made in a moment. On October 22 2016 04:12 Ej_ wrote:
yeah sure buff the fucking anti air of the new cyclones
thats what ive been wanting tbh
mech having a fucking thor on rollerblades
that kills roaches
perfect Preach it. I bet you're a protoss player since you find adepts "challenging" lol. Overwhelming majority of zerg players don't see oracles as worrisome as adepts, not even close.
But he does make a good point in a general sense. Units that out right end the game because of a singular mis micro or lack of attention aren't good for the game. Oracles definitely being one of them, Adepts of course are just OP.
|
let's see if that encouraging update can translate into a good end version of the overhaul.
|
They're buffing Cyclone AA?
It is so good right now, why in the world?
Wait, why is Corruptor lacking? Slow firing?
Terran could deal with it now.
|
On October 22 2016 06:09 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 06:06 Aegwynn wrote:On October 22 2016 05:52 Probe1 wrote:Adepts, Warp Prisms, and Tankivacs
If you had to pick the least worrisome harass units from a ZvX perspective, you've found them. Adepts are cool. They're very challenging to handle and I'm okay with the vision decrease. That's a nice change that adds risk/reward/planning to the unit without nerfing them. But they aren't the most dangerous harass unit Protoss can field. They aren't even on the same playing field as an oracle. I've seen everyone, from pro down to silver, fail to scout a build up of 4-5 oracles then BAM, your entire economy and every queen you've ever made or thought about making is dead. Adepts?Tankivacs?If Terran wants to harass with tankivacs I'm okay with it. It's widow mines in a three pronged harass that kill me. Tankivacs are relatively slow to develop. You see them coming, they hit you, you respond. Widow mines if not seen the moment they drop from a medivac will incur their terrible terrible damage quota instantly and there's no getting back all those drones. Sheesh. If you want to tone down harass, maybe pick the units that can end games because of single mistakes made in a moment. On October 22 2016 04:12 Ej_ wrote:
yeah sure buff the fucking anti air of the new cyclones
thats what ive been wanting tbh
mech having a fucking thor on rollerblades
that kills roaches
perfect Preach it. I bet you're a protoss player since you find adepts "challenging" lol. Overwhelming majority of zerg players don't see oracles as worrisome as adepts, not even close. But he does make a good point in a general sense. Units that out right end the game because of a singular mis micro or lack of attention aren't good for the game. Oracles definitely being one of them, Adepts of course are just OP.
agree o_o the first reason why I don't play SC2
or second, first is bally pathing probably
|
What Ultra armour change? I looked up the latest balance changes (http://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20749797803) and nothing about the Ultra?
|
On October 22 2016 06:15 Haighstrom wrote:
What Ultra armour change? I looked up the latest balance changes (http://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20749797803) and nothing about the Ultra?
These changes from today are going to be put into testing next week on Tuesday.
|
On October 22 2016 04:21 xTJx wrote:
Broodlords are the only units that can push mass tanks and already getting hard countered by thors, now they wanna buff cyclone AA?
I know you wanna kill your own game by making it as boring as possible, but you really wanna fix ZvT bio to break ZvT mech?
Thors hard countering broodlords? LOOOL
good joke man good joke
|
On October 22 2016 06:15 Haighstrom wrote:
What Ultra armour change? I looked up the latest balance changes (http://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20749797803) and nothing about the Ultra?
I bolded the part where they talk about the ultra change, they only mentioned it in today's update.
|
On October 22 2016 05:41 Darkdwarf wrote:
Disregarding the contents of these updates, I think it's awesome to see this level of communication from the developer of the game. As a TF2 aficionado, I can't help but compare this with how Valve treats that community. Just today I read patch notes where they're removing two of the five most popular maps from the matchmaking map pool, with no explanation at all.
SC2 fans should be happy with Blizzard's communication levels
I would be, if the updates weren't filled with so much full & PR, and if they weren't so one-sided. Blizzard tends to hear what they want to hear, and often times take advice from a minority if it aligns with their direction (and claim it's because "user feedback), or other times when there's overwhelming support of a specific direction they will go the opposite way (and claim it's, again, because "user feedback"). There's no consistency, which makes it pretty discouraging to even attempt to give feedback.
An example of fluff in this post, they say they are going to address "making the game easier" discussions, but don't really discuss it much, instead talking about how skill-based the game is, and throwing some PR about "making SC the best game of it's type that it can be"....
But where the mess up in that statement is they pit "making SC2 the best game it can be" on one side, and "increasing the player-base" on the other side. These to are NOT the antithesis of each other, and to portray them as so is misguiding the community. And if they truly believe they are opposing each other... well then their direction is way off track.
Skill ceiling, skill floor, intuitiveness, appeal to new players, and FUN FACTOR.... ALL need to be balanced if they want to make SC2 the best game it can be.
They only discuss skill ceiling, but none of the rest. Skill ceiling needs to be high, but fun factor needs to be a focus at all levels of play, skill floor needs to be reasonably attainable, and games can not survive trickling out old players and not receiving any new players...
This is besides the fact that there's many instances of the games skill ceiling & competitive aspect they are praising being harmed by their design. Their philosophy on scouting ever since SC2 started makes skill less important, and results in the better playing losing often. The focus on spreading yourself thin on APM spam, rather than increasing the APM inside aspects of the gameplay that involve strategic decision making, makes skill less important. Their philosophy would work if you had a number of strategic decisions that are all important but you had to choose which one, but if your choice is to either macro or micro, that's not quite as rewarding as it should be.
All these developers that have been trying to "create games as an eSport", have only caused harm to their games. They can talk about being skill based all they want, but after all that intentional work to try to make SC2 more "skill based", I still believe BW is the far more skill based game, and it wasn't even designed with the intent of eSports.
Other developers fell in to the same trap. GW2 tried to create an eSport out of their PvP - but it failed miserably and GW1 had more eSport success than GW2 ever had. CoD tried to become more of an eSport, and that's where the quality of the series began to decline. Most new MOBA's try to go the eSport direction, and fall in with the masses.
The thing about all the top competitive games, is their primary focus was to create a "great game" - that included not only a high skill cap, but all the other design aspects I mentioned earlier. eSport should be an afterthought, not the primary intent of game design. Because games won't succeed as an eSport without being FUN first.
The only game that was created as an eSport as of recent that actually succeeded has been Overwatch, and that can be attributed to the fact that they offered an extremely long testing phase that focused on making the game fun, rather than competitive. The competitive features were added and iterated upon after release - which is how it should be. They created a fun game, welcoming for new players, with a high skill cap, with a lot of variety, and designed a world around it that allows them to create media outside the game to appeal to new players, & combined with being welcoming to new players, ensure rapid growth for the game moving in to the future.
That's the blueprint for succeeding at what their trying to do. They have the blueprint at the company but they are not even applying it to SC2! Their handling of SC2... That's not following their successful blueprint. It's only going to weaken the StarCraft brand even further.
So no...I'm not really happy with the communication levels, because regardless of how much they communicate, the content of what they communicate is lacking.
|
The Korean feedback about toning down harassment sounds like a great idea. If I recall correctly, that idea has been suggested several times.
As it is now, games can just end because of a couple of seconds of inattention. The game is better when skirmishes, unit positioning, adapting compositions to the foe's are the main part of the game instead of 2 oracles killing everything in the mineral line, or 3 mines that got their payload off.
I have seen several people present a suggestion of lower damage oracles vs light, but with increased range. In this thread the suggestion involved increasing damage vs non-light units and making the pulsar beam a permanent weapon instead of an energy weapon.
|
On October 22 2016 06:47 Spyridon wrote:
But where the mess up in that statement is they pit "making SC2 the best game it can be" on one side, and "increasing the player-base" on the other side. These to are NOT the antithesis of each other, and to portray them as so is misguiding the community. And if they truly believe they are opposing each other... well then their direction is way off track.
I don't think Blizzard is putting those two statements on opposite sides of a scale. All they said was that they don't want to make sacrifices on skill difficulty just to achieve the goal of increasing player base.
Our main goal for StarCraft 2 is to create the best game of its type that it can ever be, and not necessarily selling more copies of the game or increasing the playerbase. Those are also great secondary goals, but we don’t feel that we should be in a place where we start to hurt the main, most important goal of StarCraft 2.
And they also don't think they are in that place. I think Blizzard believes that maintaining difficulty will not significantly decrease the number of players.
I feel like you are in the camp of "I want SC2 to be a different game", but unfortunately that ship has sailed a long time ago. They have already made up their mind on what they want SC2 to be, and your post is about making SC2 into something you want.
Just like JJR has said before, SC2 is a difficult game. If you can't deal with it, play a different one. Blizzard won't change it now.
|
very cool update i would say i like new kind of games on testing modes bcs are rly good the only thing i dislike is thatin pvt u mostly encounter tempest + mothership rush but overall its rly cool tough i would still say buff some toss infantry and hydra AND BRING CARRIER 50HP BACK after takeing it at start of lotv for no reason.Yeah mech need some more early anti air ...
|
On October 22 2016 06:47 Spyridon wrote:
But where the mess up in that statement is they pit "making SC2 the best game it can be" on one side, and "increasing the player-base" on the other side. These to are NOT the antithesis of each other, and to portray them as so is misguiding the community. And if they truly believe they are opposing each other... well then their direction is way off track.
Skill ceiling, skill floor, intuitiveness, appeal to new players, and FUN FACTOR.... ALL need to be balanced if they want to make SC2 the best game it can be.
...
So no...I'm not really happy with the communication levels, because regardless of how much they communicate, the content of what they communicate is lacking.
This exactly.
Koreans (and others) communicate that the game is too hard and too fast all the time ... yet the feedback is always "we think we're making the game better!".
Making the game accessible, intuitive, appealing ... and most importantly enjoyable at all levels has been put by the way-side.
Fun games get played.
Difficulty isn't really the problem ... it's the difficulty without any fun, it's the speed without any fun, it's the demanding mechanics without any fun. BW is much more popular in Korea than SC2 ... because people enjoy playing it.
The most important change that could happen for SC2 would be a focus upon making the game fun at all levels. This will force the focus on intuitiveness, appeal, accessibility (skill floor).
The skill ceiling right now is probably too low! But no one cares because they're not having fun!
Make the game fun, then worry about look and see if your players are clustered at the top with no room to improve.
|
On October 22 2016 07:21 Edowyth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 06:47 Spyridon wrote:
But where the mess up in that statement is they pit "making SC2 the best game it can be" on one side, and "increasing the player-base" on the other side. These to are NOT the antithesis of each other, and to portray them as so is misguiding the community. And if they truly believe they are opposing each other... well then their direction is way off track.
Skill ceiling, skill floor, intuitiveness, appeal to new players, and FUN FACTOR.... ALL need to be balanced if they want to make SC2 the best game it can be.
...
So no...I'm not really happy with the communication levels, because regardless of how much they communicate, the content of what they communicate is lacking. This exactly. Koreans (and others) communicate that the game is too hard and too fast all the time ... yet the feedback is always "we think we're making the game better!". Making the game accessible, intuitive, appealing ... and most importantly enjoyable at all levels has been put by the way-side. Fun games get played.Difficulty isn't really the problem ... it's the difficulty without any fun, it's the speed without any fun, it's the demanding mechanics without any fun. BW is much more popular in Korea than SC2 ... because people enjoy playing it. The most important change that could happen for SC2 would be a focus upon making the game fun at all levels. This will force the focus on intuitiveness, appeal, accessibility (skill floor). The skill ceiling right now is probably too low! But no one cares because they're not having fun!Make the game fun, then worry about look and see if your players are clustered at the top with no room to improve.
the game is already fun.
|
On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote:
the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
|
On October 22 2016 07:36 Edowyth wrote:Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then.
people are just losing interest in RTS games.
|
On October 22 2016 07:39 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 07:36 Edowyth wrote:On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote:
the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then. people are just losing interest in RTS games.
I don't believe it.
People play games they love all the time. I still play Morrowind a ridiculous number of years after it came out (even with all the other RPG options out there) because it's fun.
Games are about having fun ... if people had fun playing Starcraft, they absolutely wouldn't care how you classified the game. "RTS" is just a name.
|
On October 22 2016 07:41 Edowyth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 07:39 Charoisaur wrote:On October 22 2016 07:36 Edowyth wrote:On October 22 2016 07:26 Charoisaur wrote:
the game is already fun.
Maybe you can explain the dearth of players, then. people are just losing interest in RTS games. I don't believe it. People play games they love all the time. I still play Morrowind a ridiculous number of years after it came out (even with all the other RPG options out there) because it's fun. Games are about having fun ... if people had fun playing Starcraft, they absolutely wouldn't care how you classified the game. "RTS" is just a name.
no people don't care how a game is classified they care about what you do in them.
nowadays few gamers enjoy a stressful 1vs1 multiplayer game where you can only blame yourself when you lose.
they prefer games where you only have to control a single unit and play in a team with 4 other people.
|
On October 22 2016 04:10 Charoisaur wrote:
agree with everything DK said. great changes.
but... Burrowed infestors... does he really want to keep them in the game?
with how crap neural parasite is and how rarely infestors are used at all, burrowed spell casting is just what that unit needs. Also, they have a hurtbox while burrowed meaning units can't just walk over them which can actually be bothersome considering they are slower and you need your army to maneuver around them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
